[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
kau obverse
I see that my previous post on "kau" is erroneous because I didn't look
up the definition of "djuno", which requires an abstraction in x2.
However it will make the same sense if the selbri "sanji" is everywhere
substituted for "djuno."
sanji saj conscious x1 is
conscious/aware of x2 (object/abstract); x1 discerns/recognizes x2
(object/abstract) =6m 48 [also: x1 knows [of] x2 (one sense);
awareness implies some amount of mental processing above and beyond
mere sensory detection, and may also be applied to mental relationships
that are not detected by the senses]; (cf. menli, morji, ganse, sipna,
cikna)
Lojbab said, speaking of Nora's contribution:
The "makau" style indirect 'questions' to her are really
>the same statement, but they falsely resemble questions in English (and
>maybe in other European languages) when what is really being done in "I
>know *who* went to the store" is ellipsis: (mi djuno ledu'u zo'ekau
>klama le zarci). There is no 'question' and it is unloglandic to think
>of it as a question.
.i mi djuno le du'u zo'e kau klama le zarci
is close to my revised formulation:
.i mi sanji da kau klama lo zarci
as lojbab intends it (I hope)
but I read lojbab's sentence as:
I know the factual predication: some unspecified person goes to the market.
This doesn't say that I know exactly who went, it only says I know some
unspecifed person goes. To say that I know "who" went I would need to
say I know the referent of the predication:
.i mi djuno la'e le du'u zo'e kau klama le zarci.
I might add that if xa'a were accepted, we could say:
.i mi djuno xa'a dakau klama le zarci.
xa'a would allow x2 djuno to accept an object/person. x3 and x4 djuno
are left intact giving djuno a different definition than sanji. xa'a
would really add a lot of expressive power to the language as well as
allowing very natural (for E-speakers at least) expressions, such as
"Alas, poor Yorik, I knew *him* well".
djer