Subject: Re: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution?

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:29:26 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> 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.

I like it! But then I liked lu'e. Jorge insists that one can't djuno
anything but le du'u, even if that sumti by its formulation and in
context of djuno really implies a fully-qualified du'u. But a slob like
me finds it elegant.

Here we are actually giving practical application to that most neglected
yet fundamental part of Lojban, 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.

Now I suspect the problem with this example lies in the English. I don't
feel that this makau belongs there from a Lojbanic viewpoint. .i ru'a lu
ka ce'u prami li'u. The extra specification of the quality should be done
with tanru components on prami, or a poi clause on the end. The quality
that differs is the quality of being in the x1 place of prami. Specifying
further, it differs not in how or why they love, but in who. But this
extra fact is not anything that should be described with another cmavo in
a place of prami. It should be described the right way we do things in
Lojban; tanru or poi, and not through the import of undefined grammars
from English.

> 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.

Do you mean xukau = jikau?

-----
"I have never been active in politics or in any act against occupation,
but the way the soldiers killed Mizyed has filled me with hatred and
anger. Now I'm ready to carry out a suicide attack inside Israel,"
one of the witnesses said.