From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Thu Dec 2 07:39:25 1999 X-Digest-Num: 300 Message-ID: <44114.300.1629.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 07:39:25 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Okay, so to settle this all once and for all, which one is correct? > >la djan. djuno le du'u makau klama = >John knows the bridi (who (ind.) goes). >John knows who goes. > >1) ro da zo'u la djan. djuno le jei da klama >for every X : John knows the truth value of (X goes) >No matter what you're thinking of, John knows whether it goes or not. (my >favorite) This one I think is close, but it doesn't get to the bottom of it because {jei} is another form of indirect question. You could write {le du'u xukau da klama} instead of {le jei da klama}, and we still have to explain {kau}. Also, I think the case where nobody goes needs to be contemplated. In that case, John knows that nobody goes, but that is not expressed by (1). >2) [su'o] da zo'u la djan. djuno le jei da klama >for at least one X : John knows the truth value of (X goes) >There's something such that John knows whether it goes or not. This one is definitely wrong. If John knows that Mary does not go, that is not enough to claim that John knows who goes, but it is enough to make (2) true. >3) ro da poi klama zo'u la djan. djuno le du'u da klama >for every X that goes : John knows the bridi (X goes) >For everything that goes, John knows it does. This is where I would start from, but as And pointed out it is incomplete. I think the complete version could be: 3b) ro da poi klama zo'u la djan. djuno le du'u da klama ije ro de poi na klama zo'u la djan na djuno le du'u de klama ije no di klama ijanaibo la djan djuno le du'u noda klama For every x that goes, John knows that x goes & For every y that does not go, it is not the case that John knows that y goes & If no z goes, then John knows that nobody goes. >4) [su'o] da poi klama zo'u la djan. djuno le du'u da klama >for at least one X that goes : John knows the bridi (X goes) >There's something that goes which John knows does. This one is strange because it asserts that there is at least someone who does go, which I don't think is part of {la djan djuno le du'u makau klama}. Also, it makes the Lojban assertion very different from the English one. That is not bad in itself, but we should have some reason to do it, shouldn't we? >Or you could do something nasty with "tu'a" that I won't think about now. Maybe, but it wouldn't be very enlightening... co'o mi'e xorxes