From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Apr 16 11:30:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 16 Apr 2001 18:30:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 96642 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2001 18:30:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Apr 2001 18:30:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2001 18:30:34 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.13.40]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010416183031.BAQC290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:30:31 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Q Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:29:38 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200104161245.f3GCjla32620@hobbiton.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Avital: > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, biomass@hobbiton.org wrote: > > >How would I say, "I don't know if that is true", as opposed to "I > don't > > >know that it is true", which would be ? > I > > >guess this has been asked several times, but, well, one again? > Please? > > > > Actually {mi na djuno lenu ti drani} is "I don't know the event of > this thing > > being correct", which doesn't make much sense. I use {mi na djuno > ledu'u ti > > drani} for "I don't know that this is correct" and {mi na djuno lejei > ti drani} > > for "I don't know whether this is correct". > > a) You're right. I meant to use . > b) That's nice. Thanks. > c) For all of you wanting to find a situation where two different > abstractions can be used with a difference in meaning, here it is. Did anyone in the recent thread on abstractions actually say that differences couldn't be found among any of the abstractions? Surely not. {jei broda} = "the truth value of lo du'u broda". {ni broda} is "the amount of [some other sort of abstraction]". {du'u} is a proposition. {nu} is what is commonly called a 'situation' in linguistics. IIRC Jorge was questioning the utility of the subtypes of {nu} (and I would disagree with him on that point). I may have forgotten some abstractors, but off the top of my head the only questionable one -- in terms of whether there is any difference in meaning -- is {ka}, which looks to be a {du'u} containing a {ce'u} -- or, alternatively, {du'u}, which is a {ce'u}-less {ka}. This said, all abstractions could be periphrastically derived from du'u/ka. --And.