From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 13 10:16:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 17:15:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 63185 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 17:14:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 17:14:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 17:14:43 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.12]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010813171441.OWZ23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:14:41 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:13:28 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" During our first major Q-kau discussions, around 1997 or so (I estimate, without checking the archive) -- or perhaps this was more recently during the What I Have For Dinner thread? -- I remember I suggested things like: mi djuno lo'i klama = "I know who goes" [= For every property of lo'i klama I know that it is a property of lo'i klama --?] As I recall, this was quickly dismissed, and we moved on to other solutions, but I'm now wondering why it was dismissed. If a set's only properties are the identity of its members, then (for example) knowing a set must mean knowing which things are (and aren't) members of the set. An unthorough check through all nonmain-bridi Q-kau contexts (djuno/know, kucli/wonder, change, depend on, discover), suggests to me that only x3 of frica (ka ce'u prami ma kau) is not readily amenable to this solution, but this doesn't seem an intractable problem. As for main-bridi Q-kau (Q-ever kau), I would now like to concede to Jorge that these are genuine Q-kau constructions, but (I think) all Q-kau reduce to {xu kau}, and AFAICS (myopically) {xu kau} = "whether or not" = U-connective. I can't believe the Q-kau problem can be solved so gordianly, so please point out the problems that I am failing to recognize... --And.