Subject: Re: [lojban] Siver threads among the mold

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:51:28 EDT

In a message dated 8/30/2001 6:20:14 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> ni1: li piso'i ni la djan clani
> =li piso'i jai sela'u clani fai la djan
> 
> ni2: la djan frica la meris le ni ce'u clani
> =la djan frica la meris le ka ce'u clani sela'u makau
> 

I guess my problem with the second version is that it is set up as an 
indirect question wiht {kau} but can't be one, since it can't be a question 
at all: properties aren't questions. OHo. I think I begin to see what has 
happened as a result of the {du'u}-{ka} amalgamation. If {du'u...kau} is a 
set of propositions, then {ka... kau} is a set of properties, differing by 
what goes in the {kau} place. Put a {ce'u} in and you get a function that 
gives different sets for different values of {ce'u} OK so far. But now the 
{frica} part: in one sense, any two people will differ in this set, because 
they have a different matrix and thus different members in the set: one has 
{la djan clano} and the other {la meris clano} at he beginning of the 
paradigm cases, for example. But in the crucial factor, the number that goes 
in for {makau}, they will have (inter alia) all the same numbers. Now, the 
*right* numbers are different, but how do we sort them out from the rest? I 
think that may be the difference between {ni} and {sela'u makau} (but it 
needs more work). Of course, it would be {lo ni} since we may not know what 
the numbers are (maybe {lo ka} too? No, that is the unique function to 
questions). We could insist that {kau} always got only the right answers, 
but that makes nonsense of most other cases.

But all that aside, I now am in the opposite position of not seeing the 
difference between the two again. The {frica} introduces the the additional 
factor of the bound {ka} (not really, but we are only interested in the two 
values); can we make a similar distinction in simpler cases and get the 
right results? {le ni la djan clano cu barda} makes sense, does {le ka la 
djan clano sela'u makau cu barda}? I don't think so, but it should if the 
{frica} case works

Back to an earlier problem: You say quite confidently, having seen that the 
Lojban works out badly or some other how, that "He believes what he hears" is 
just a relative clause, not an indirect question. How do you tell? Consider 
"He knows what he likes," where the ambiguity hinges on "know" -- which is 
this one? or, wihtout ambiguity in the verb, "He sees what he likes." I am 
still worried that this question/relative ambiguity underlies a problem 
here,though it may not be the 1-2 contrast you are working on.