Subject: RE: [lojban] ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:50:21 +0100

Xod:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
>
> > Xod:
> > > ni'o I recall a while ago I offered an analogy of ka:ce'u::du'u:makau, yet
> > > nobody else thought they were anything alike! But they seem directly
> > > parallel to me. Both are abstractions, and both ce'u and makau focus the
> > > abstraction into a certain place of the abstracted bridi.
> >
> > I see a vague similarity, but recall Jorge's example
> >
> > ko'a ko'e frica le ka ce'u prami ma kau
> >
> > "X differs from Y in who they love"
> >
> > showing that they can sensically cooccur.
>
> If I managed to imply that they could never be combined, I'm sorry.

You didn't imply that, but often true analogies point to the conclusion
that analogues are versions of the same thing -- ke'a and ce'u, for
example, or ka and du'u. I just wanted to make clear that this is not
such an analogy.

> Jorge's sentence, which I cannot find in the Yahoo's archives using a
> search,

It wasn't verbatim, tho I'm fairly sure it contained frica and ma kau.
It dates from about the time we were engaging in the discussions that
led to the inception of ce'u (one of the last cmavo to be added before
the baseline), and before there was ce'u the main candidates for its
function were ke'a and makau.

> is very interesting. I haven't yet thought of a different way to
> state that idea in Lojban, but I am not yet convinced that the Lojban
> actually means the English sentence below it. Why does makau have any
> meaning away from du'u?

I have for some years been concerned by our inability (due to lack
of logical expertise?) to uncover the underlying logic of Q-kau, so
it's hard to say where it is and isn't appropriate. As things stand,
we use English (& other natlangs?) as a guide: where English uses
a subordinate interrogative, Lojban uses Q-kau. That's not necessarily
mabla glico, because one mustn't underestimate or contemn the deep
underlying logicality of natlangs.

Anyway, this means that noone else either can find a different way to
say it in Lojban.

> du'u do prami makau
> The identity of the thing you love

more like "who you love"

> do prami makau
> (What does it mean?)

Nothing, AFAIK. Because we don't understand Q-kau properly.

> I do recall that the last time around Jorge asked me how, without makau,
> I could say "I know who goes to the store".

Nobody on the list except me has come up with a half decent answer to
this question, and my method didn't generalize to all cases of subordinate
interrogatives in English.

> I couldn't think of a way.
> It's useful to have a focus for du'u!
>
> How about:
> da poi slabu mi zo'u da klama le zarci
>
> Or, as will occur in fluent discussion, sidestep the issue completely:
> da .i'u klama le zarci

Jorge dealt with this, so I won't comment.

> du'u and du'u + makau seem so different that it seems to me the latter
> should actually be considered a different abstraction. What about
> gardenpathing with du'u + makau? Isn't this a problem, since the reader
> can't tell beforehand if a makau is coming up?

Excellent point: yes, there is a risk of gardenpathing. In a sense, if
we can get away with "du'u ... Q-kau", then we should be able to get
away with "du'u ... ce'u" and dispense with ka. OTOH, if we need ka
to forewarn us of the presence of a ce'u, then we need a new abstractor
to forewarn us of the presence of Q-kau.

I do think, though, that logically a du'u containing a Q-kau is truly
a du'u.

> Now look again at:
>
> du'u do prami makau
> The identity of the thing you love
>
> Yet:
>
> le selprami be do
> The thing you love
>
> Here we have a thing, and its identity (an abstraction of the thing?), but
> the grammar is very different and doesn't reflect the simple relationship
> between them. Is it time for lu'e?
>
> lu'e le selprami be do
> A symbol for the thing you love
>
> Isn't that what I was looking for in answer to Jorge's question?
>
> mi djuno lu'e le klama be le zarci
> I know who goes to the store
>
> lu'e isn't quite a du'u, but it is a piece of information, so I think it's
> true to the intent of djuno. The sticklers can replace djuno with selsau
> if they must.

I think Jorge has dealt with this too, so, in haste, I won't address it
myself.

--And.