From mark@kli.org Sun Aug 05 07:16:02 2001
Return-Path: <mark@kli.org>
X-Sender: mark@kli.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 14:16:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 76768 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 14:16:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 14:16:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n1.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 14:16:01 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: mark@kli.org
Received: from [10.1.2.51] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2001 14:16:01 -0000
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 14:15:59 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a
Message-ID: <9kjkev+hebt@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <F43afYQEqa40IWTCa2v0000f5af@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 1461
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 162.33.229.2
From: mark@kli.org

--- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:
> 
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >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.
> 
> The obvious candidate is {jei}, it already means {du'u xukau}.
> 
> However, I don't remember ever being gardenpathed by "du'u...Q-kau".

I thought that {jei}!={du'u xukau} and that was one of the reasons for
{kau} in the first place. Correct me if I misremember. It was
something along the lines of {le jei broda} means either "true" or
"false"... to the extent that truth or falsity can be substituted for
it. So {mi djuno le jei broda} means nothing more or less than "I
know 'false'" or "I know 'true'", depending. This would make it less
than useful, yes.

I'm not sure I disagree with xod, that {du'u Xkau} is "the identity
of...", or with And, that du'u + kau isn't *really* a du'u. We have
had similar headaches about indirect questions in Klingon too,
incidentally.

I catch myself wondering, though, if this isn't something specific to
words like {djuno} and {jinvi} and whatnot, and doesn't really need a
general solution.

More later, eventually; there's been a lot of stuff going on over the
weekend I see.

~mark