Re: general response on needing books

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> > >         mi djuno le du'u lo cukta cu blanu
> > >         I know that there is a book that is blue.
> > >
> > >         da poi cukta zo'u mi djuno le du'u da blanu
> > >         There is a book such that I know it is blue.
> > >
> > > Different claims, both with realis subordinate clauses.
> > > (In the second one I have to know which book, in the first one I
> > > may or may not know.)
> > Are you *sure*? I agree there isn't an irrealis element
> > (assuming djuno is like 'know' rather than 'believe')
> > but your two examples (in both Eng. & Loj) seem to me
> > to mean the same thing.
> I have 5 books on my table. I tell you that one of them is blue.
> Assuming you believe me, then
>         do djuno le du'u pa le cukta cu blanu
>         You know that one of the books is blue.
> but not
>         pa le cukta zo'u do djuno le du'u cy blanu
>         For one of the books: you know that it is blue.

I still don't see it. 'Know' means that that its duhu complement
is true (according to the speaker). You seem to be using 'djuno'
to mean 'believe', whose duhu complement is not necessearily
true - i.e. it is irrealis - and only on this interpretation can I
understand your examples to differ in meaning.

> > Still, I think I will drop the 'xihi' proposal, in the hope
> > that combinations of xehe, lahelu, and use of prenexes will
> > do the job.
>
> I think that if nitcu et al. are changed to event-only, then xe'e
> won't be of much use at all either.

I think xehe is still needed for "xehe PA" constructions: "I am
willing to read any three books", "any two people can sit on
the sofa". Can you do these without xehe?

----
And