Subject: Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 14:15:59 -0000

--- 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