From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 06 15:18:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Aug 2001 22:18:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 74514 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2001 22:17:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:26 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.128]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010806221725.WZEZ6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:17:25 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:16:28 +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: <9kjkev+hebt@eGroups.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Mark: > --- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" wrote: [...] > > The obvious candidate is {jei}, it already means {du'u xukau}. > > 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...", This is wrong, unless "the identity of" is being used as a covert interrogative. > or with And, that du'u + kau isn't *really* a du'u. I don't claim this. In cases where I have succeeded in reformulating Q-kau sentences to avoid Q-kau, the du'u remains. > 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. Were this true, then the problem would be less recalcitrant, because Q-kau bridi that are sumti of djuno and kucli can be reformulated kau-lessly. But English shows us that in fact subordinate interrogatives aren't restricted to a definite group of selbri (cf. "They differ in HOW tall they are", "It depends on HOW tall they are", "Let's change HOW tall the house will be", etc.) --And.