Subject: [lojban] Re: tu'o du'u (was Re: xoi'a)

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 19:15:50 -0500

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 05:01:37PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> jordan:
> #This wasn't an example of a bad usage of "le" with du'u. Remember,
> #x1 of du'u is a predication (formed by the abstraction inside the
> #du'u). As far as I can think it, there's no difference between
> #ledu'u and lodu'u, because you just said the predication. No one
> #can ask "which predicaton?" (sensibly).
> 
> That's why {le} is inappropriate (except arguably for the unusual
> reading "it (viz the proposition blahblah)").
> 
> It's kind of like if I say "a (certain) nose of mine is big" or "look at a (certain) 
> sun" -- since I have only one nose, and there is only one sun, the 
> referent is obvious, yet the locutions imply that I have more than one nose
> and that there is more than one sun.

I suppose you're not giving me an example because you're trying to
claim it is *always* bad to say "ledu'u"?

I don't think that using "le" implies there are more than the su'opa
to which is being refered. Using "le" means "su'opa le ro", and
makes no claim about how big ro is. If anything, for the du'u
clauses "le" is more proper than a different article because the
speaker obviously has the preposition in mind (as they're about to
say it).

Note that this is entirely different from the often improperly used
"le" found with "nu". (x1 of nu is the event, where x1 of du'u is
the predication expressed in the du'u -- i.e. du'u is more or less
a no-op which just is there for grammar purposes).

-- 
Jordan DeLong - [email-masked]
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku