Re: general response on needing books

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

And:
> I still don't see it. 'Know' means that that its duhu complement
> is true (according to the speaker).

Exactly. But a quantification inside the du'u complement refers to
that statement (the one that the speaker knows is true). A
quantification outside refers to the statement that says that the
speaker knows something is true.

> 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.

Suppose you find a handwritten letter without a signature.
>From your knowledge of how things get written,

        do djuno le du'u da zo'u da ciska le xatra
        You know that for some x, x wrote the letter.

However,

        da zo'u do na djuno le du'u da ciska le xatra
        It is false that for some x, you know that x wrote the letter.

or rephrasing,

        roda naku zo'u do djuno le du'u da ciska le xatra
        For each x, it is false that you know that x wrote the letter.


> > 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?

Yes, for the same reason you can do nitcu: they are inside abstractions.

        mi djica le nu mi tcidu ci selcku
        I am willing to read three books.

        kakne le nu re prenu cu zutse le sfofa
        Can that two people sit on the sofa.

Who is it that can, in the last one, is tricky.

But yes, there has to be a way at least to emphasize the anyness, like
the English "whatsoever".


Jorge