Re: Q-kau

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

Jorge:
> > I assume that if two unordered sets have exactly the same members then
> > they are the same set. In this case, knowing the identity of a set
> > amounts to knowing what its members are:
>
> May I suggest we abandon {djuno} to discuss indirect questions. The double
> meaning that "know" has in English is muddling things considerably.
> "Knowing the identity" uses one meaning, while "knowing what its members
> are" uses the other.
 
I always use "wonder", since its complement in English must be an
interrogative pronoun. I don't agree that "knowing the identity"
and "knowing what its members are" use two different meanings, but
I do agree that "know something about something" uses a slightly
different sense of "know", so we might do well to follow your advice.
 
> Some nice gismu that go well with indirect questions:
>
> cusku say
> jdice decide
> jinvi opine
> krici believe
> senpi doubt
> smadi guess
> sruma assume
> tugni agree
> xusra assert
 
I'm really biased by my glico intuitions, which can't get it with
opine, believe, and assume, and  doubt only works with whether.
But "smadi" and "jdice" are I hope uncontroversial.
 
> I don't think {mi djuno le ka ...} makes much sense, but it is more
> clear with other predicates. Would you also propose {mi do tugni
> le ka du lo'i klama} = "I agree with you on the property of being
> equal to the set of goers", to mean "I agree with you on who went".
 
I think so, if it means we agree on a matter of fact rather than on
a decision [that's the only way I can take the English]. Let's check
with smadi or jdice. "Guess who went"
"Guess the property of being equal to the set of goers". Yes: this
works for me.
 
> > Q-kau could either be dropped, or treated
> > as a possibly malglico and possibly abbreviatory locution inherited
> > from Lojban's less enlightened youth...
>
> What is so malglico about kau? I like it very much, and I don't think
> we can drop it.
 
I say it may be malglico. This is because we appear to be unsure of
how to represent it logically, and the adopted method of saying it
is close to how English does it. As I said before, it may instead
turn out that English is zabna logji, but at present I am inclined
to think not.
 
----
And