Subject: Re: [lojban] kau -- What does it really mean?!

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:48:25 EDT

{kau} attaches to an interrogative word in a {du'u} clause to make an 
indirect reference to a proposition or cluster of propositions (one question 
about {kau} is whether this cluster is a set or a mass or...), the answer(s) 
to the question. Restrictions on propositions(s) referred to derive from the 
bridi in which the {du'u} clause appears: for example, in the second argument 
to {djuno}, only true proposition(s) can be referred to in a true sentence, 
while as the selbri all of the possible answers are referred to.

avital:
<<
Given with the quote is the example "mi djuno le du'u makau pu klama le
zarci", which is supposedly paraphrasable into "mi djuno le pu klama be le
zarci". I find this statement very strange. The meaning I understand of "le
du'u makau ..." is not the walker, but the fact that he is the walker (thus
the "le du'u" -- why would "le du'u" be used if we are not speaking of
knowing any fact?). The akwardness is also manifested in the way the bridi
is paraphrased -- into the x3 place of djuno instead of x2. How would "mi
nelci le du'u makal pu klama le zarci" be paraphrased? Into "mi nelci le pu
klama be le zarci"? Why is "nelci" different than "djuno"?
Surely it is {mi djuno fi le pu klama be le zarci}. That is not quite the 
same as {mi djuno le du't makau klama le zarci}, since it say only that I 
know *something* about the store-goer, while the {djuno le du'u makau} say 
that I know a proposition about that goer which has replaced {makau} with an 
informative referer: a name, a description that will get us to the right 
person, ... . (It could be {mi djuno tu'a le klama...} as well, not so tidy.)
{djuno} is different from {nelci} in that it regularly takes propositional 
arguments, while {nelci} does not (objects or events). 

<<
"mi nelci ledu'u makau klama", I mean that I like that
fact that John goes, or more precisely, I like it that it is John who goes.
It would be more natural to say, at this point, {mi nelci le nu la djan 
klama}, "I like the fact that John goes," and that it is John who goes can be 
stressed in various ways (front, loudness, etc.). I suppose that {mi nelci 
ledu'u makau klama} could (whether it would or not is open to discussion) 
mean "I like the answer to the question 'Who goes to the store?'" with 
something like your suggested reading: "I like it that it is John who goes to 
the store." but that is not a usual use for {kau}, which goes with places 
that normally take questions and answers -- "verbs of congnition: as we are 
wont to say.

<<
"le xokau prenu cu barda", 
Barring adoption of some of the variety of suggestions that have been made 
along this line, {kau} only makes sense in {du'u} constructions, since it is 
generating propositions, not facts or objects or properties. It is (as of 
now) very linguistic.

<<
xod's thoughts, saying that a set is
not large -- it's cardinality is large
This seems a remarkable bit of hair splitting. A person is not large, it is 
just his weight or his height or .. that is large?

<<
What I'd
expect there to exist is something similar to a cmavo, that we shall call
"kaui", that can be used instead of "kau", but instead of creating a sumti
meaning "the fact that ...", we would just get the answer. Thus, I could
say: "le du'u xokaui prenu cu barda"
Well, the logicians' position is that the answer to a question is always a 
proposition, not a fragment. We may give the fragment, but that is only 
because context allows eliding all ther rest in utterance, but what is said 
(as opposed to what is uttered) is the full sentence.
{le du'u xokaui prenu cu barda} is not a sentence but a sumti and the obvious 
fix {le du'u xokaui prenu kei cu barda} leaves only a sumti iin the 
proposition. {le du'u xokaui da prenu kei broda} Assuming that the grammar 
of {kaui} is like that of {kau}

<<
Some people have suggested using "ni"
instead of my "ledu'u xokaui", but that's not what I understand of "ni". I
understand that "leni blanu" means blueness. The same people would say that
"blueness" is "leka blanu", which I disagree with, but this is not part of
this discussion.
Well, I would prefer {le du'u ce'u blanu} for "blueness," but {le ka [ce'u] 
blanu} is too well established. {le ni blanu} is the amount something is 
blue-- not terrifically clear, but apparently something like intensity or 
extent of coverage or... .

<<
Consider another example -- "The logical connective between the senteces "I
go" and "I talk" is useful". I would say this as "ledu'u mi klama gi'ikaui
tavla cu selpli". How else would this be said? Using "kau" would be
incorrect, and you'd have to create strange constructions to get this using
simple bridi.
Well, Lojban is surprisingly short on grammatical terminology, but a lujvo 
for "connective" should be easy to whip up and then it could be said much as 
it is in English. This is not to say that {kaui} might not be useful 
sometimes, maybe even here. But it needs work, I think.

<<
The main problem with what I'm saying here, of course, is, since "ledu'u
xokaui ..." is a number rather than a sumti, and "ledu'u ... gi'ikaui ..."
is a bridi logical connective rather than a sumti, how could I put them into
a sumti place in a bridi? If 3 people walk and I say "ledu'u xokaui klama cu
barda" does this mean "li ci cu barda"? How would the "li" get in there?
Bad case of use-mention trouble. Assuming that {kaui} were a legitimate 
device, the resulting expression would *refer to* a whatever (number, 
connective, ...). The expression is obviously a sumti (starts with {le} and 
so on). It is, in short, as good a way to refer to whatever as {li panono} 
or {zo e}, and works just like them in the sentence. So, the example you 
give is exactly right: the {li} gets in because that is how you (short) 
answer the question -- you refer to the appropriate number, and reference to 
numbers start with {li} (just as we answwer the question about who goes with 
{la djan}, not just {djan}).

<<
a) What is the relation between "le klama" and "ledu'u makau klama"? xod
suggested that it is something similar to a lu'e/la'e connection - "ledu'u
makau klama" is actually a reference to the actual walker. This seems
interesting, but something seems missing in this explanation.
In the right context, the {le du'u} construction refers to a proposition 
about the goer referred to by {le klama}. 

<<
What is so special about "djuno" that you can say "mi djuno ledu'u makau
klama", but different in "blanu" making "ledu'u makau klama cu blanu"
completely meaningless? Is there a certain (small) set of gismu with which
you can use "ledu'u ..kau" as opposed to others? Should this be
well-defined?

{djuno} is a cognitive predicate, {blanu} is not. There is indeed a small 
list of predicates (mainly those with a label "(du'u)" on one of their 
argument places) with which {kau} makes sense (as of now, at least) and those 
are mainly marked as noted (though we may ahve missed a few).