Re: A couple of questions

[i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

> CS>1) Is there any difference between "lo broda cu brode" and "da poi broda cu
> CS>   brode"?  If they are the same, the statement "lo [unicorn] cu brode"
> CS>   should be false, since noda cu [unicorn].

cu'u la lojbab.
> lo broda is not the same as da poi broda, and this is specifically one of
> the differences - there is no claim that the referent exists in the unoverse
> of discourse.
...

I still can't help feeling that this is BOGUS.
I never did understand this concept, and I think the recent discussions
have helped clarify the situation.
Let me try to change your mind.

You seem to be saying that {lo broda cu brode}, e.g
 (1) {lo mlatu je nanmu cu blanu}
could be true, even if there is
no such thing as a cat-man ***in the universe of discourse***
(far less the real world).  This doesn't make any sense to
me whatsoever - I can't think of any interpretation of (1)
which doesn't imply existence.

I believe that all the situations where you might think you
needed such a concept are better handled in other ways.

Intensional contexts:
    e.g. {nitcu}, {djica}, where there is an abstraction which
the typical NL elides, but we strongly encourage to be
acknowledged in Lojban.
Veijo's "You may choose two books" is similar.  The abstraction
is compressed rather than totally elided in English -
{curmi lenu do cuxna re cukta}.  (There are some other issues
in this translation which I'll skip over for the time being.)

Typical objects:
    e.g. "I like an apple", which is {mi nelci lo'e plise}.
Some of these might even use {ro}.

Hypothetical objects:
    e.g. the long-sought unicorn, which is {lo [da'i] pavyseljirna}.
The {da'i} is recommended for clarity, but we often live without it.

I may have forgotten some of the problem cases, but my instinct is
that they will all be soluble.
I strongly recommend that {lo broda} be defined as equivalent to
{da poi broda}, at least as far as the formal definition goes.
If we feel the need to allow some sort of laxity in informal
jbosku, that's a different matter - we all live with various
kinds of indiscretion in the rough and tumble of live usage -
but I don't like muddying the basics.

> CS>3) Does the sentence
> CS>
> CS>     mi djuno ledu'u do djuno ledu'u makau blanu
> CS>   mean "I know you know what is blue" or "I know what you know to be
> CS>blue"?
> CS>   Instinctively, the former should be correct, and the latter meaning can
> CS>   be expressed by
> CS>
> CS>     mi djuno ledu'u do djuno ledu'u makauxire blanu
> CS>
> CS>   Am I right?

> Since "kau" is a discursive, it cannot be subscripted, so your solution is
> rather vague in meaning - you have really subscripted the "ma".

Eh, what?  I thought he'd got it 100% right.  Last time I heard,
that WAS the way we distinguish nested constructs, including {kau}.
Is the disposition of the subscript a serious problem?

> I would do the second as

> mi djuno tu'a makau poi do djuno ledu'u ke'a blanu

I'm not sure either way about this as it stands, but it
certainly doesn't extend well to deeper nesting.

mu'o mi'e .i,n.