Re: More Wind from the North

[John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan>]

> > la berbif. joi la sol. puki darlu lejei ri jikau ra vlimau le drata kei
>
> ki'a
>
> Neither this nor any of the alternatives given does anything for me.
>
> My copy of logdata3.lex says that "ji" indicates a question,
> and the truth value of a question seems moot, but then maybe
> that's how the language works.

Since questions in Lojban (except truth questions) are of the fill-in-the
blank type, like Chinese, the truth value of a question is open until answered.
When an answer is available, then it is used to replace the question word;
the question is then taken to be true or false depending on whether the
resulting statement is true or false.  Therefore, given that George ate the
potato, the question

	ma citka le patlu
	[which sumti] eat the potato
	Who ate the potato?

is true if and only if the answer is "la djordj." or an equivalent.

Truth questions are taken to be true if the answer confirms them, and false
if the answer denies them.

However, the relatively new cmavo "kau" marks an indirect question.  It appears
in abstractions (especially "du'u" and "jei" abstractions) and may be attached
anywhere to indicate the focus of the indirect question.  Therefore:

	la berbif. joi la sol. puki darlu lejei
		ri jikau ra
		vlimau le drata kei
	NorthWind joined-with Sun [past] argue the-truth-value-of
		(the-latter or [indirect question] the former
		is-powerful-er-than the other)
	North Wind and Sun argued whether the former was more powerful or the
		latter was.

> >From gismu.lst, "darlu" means
>         argue for...against...(obj./event idea)
> or from logdata.raw
>         x1 argues for stand x2 against stand x3
> which implies to me that "se darlu" should be a
> predication ("du'u"), not a truth value, which I imagine as
> being something I could e.g. know, but not a stand I could argue for.

Correct.

> Why not use "fa'u", which gives:
>
>         la berbif. fa'u la sol. puki darlu ledu'u leno'a vlimau le drata kei
>         (Each) argues HE is stronger than the other.

Excellent, except that "leno'a" is not properly closed, and gobbles up "vlimau"
in a useless tanru.  Read "leno'aku vlimau" or "leno'a cu vlimau".

> If you want them to argue *about* a topic, then surely you're
> better off using something based on "casnu", perhaps "darlu casnu"
> or "casnu.ienai".  This gives us some new possibilities.
> (You might as well go back to "joi" now.)
>
>         la berbif. joi la sol. casnu.ienai lejei da vlimau le drata kei
>         (They) dispute WHETHER one is stronger than the other.

This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of attitudinals, which are intended
to reflect the SPEAKER's attitude (or at most, the attitude of those with whom
the speaker feels empathy).  Consequently, they are not generally usable in
narrative, at least not of the usual detached kind.

In addition, "da" is rather unbuttoned semantically; it just means (Ex)
[backwards E] unless qualified or quantified, i.e. "the truth-value-of
there being something which is stronger than the other."

> Or perhaps you *were* talking about WHO is the stronger,
> but wanted them to argue *about* it.
>
> If, as the use of "ji" above suggest, it makes sense to make
> an abstraction from a question, then
>
>         da casnu.ienai le du'u ma vlimau le drata kei
>         They dispute WHO is stronger than the other.

This is where "kau" comes in.  As this sentence stands, it is itself a question,
and would be translated  "Who was it that they were disputing was stronger than
the other?"  The "kau" removes the direct-question interpretation.

> Or, another way of referring to the question:
>
>         da casnu.ienai le preti po'u lu ma vlimau le drata li'u
>         They dispute the question "Who is stronger than the other?"
>
> But why is it even as complicated as this?
>
>         da casnu.ienai lo vlimau be le drata
>         They dispute the one who is stronger than the other
> or
>         da casnu.ienai de poi vlimau le drata
>         They dispute x who-specifically-is stronger than the other
>
> Maybe not.  This suggests that they know who is stronger,
> and are arguing about some other aspect of him, such as
> what he had for breakfast.

Exactly.  That's why the indirect question machinery is needed.
"casnu" is not "discuss" but "discuss-about".

> The point in question is the *identity* of he-who-is-stronger.
> I tried various expressions to get at the concept of identity,
> such as "ka du"
>
>         da casnu.ienai leka du de poi vlimau le drata kei
>         They dispute the property of being equal to one who is stronger
>         than the other
>
> which isn't very convincing, and "la'e"
>
>         da casnu.ienai la'e lo vlimau be le drata
>         They dispute the referent of "the one who is stronger than the other"
>
> but I doubt "la'e" works that way.

Not likely.  A person is not, in general, a reference to anything.

> But maybe this is where "kau" comes in.
>
>         da casnu.ienai lokau vlimau be le drata
> or
>         da casnu.ienai dekau poi vlimau le drata
>
> I think this last is my favourite - "da poi" mirrors what I'd
> expect to see in the context of symbolic logic.

Actually, "kau" can be used to tag anything that has the appropriate grammar,
without real change of meaning.  It just says "The preceding word is a mere
place-holder in an indirect question".  So "dekau" or "makau" is all the same.

> But wait a minute, shouldn't it be "kaunai"?  Is it "kau" because
> they each think they know THEY are the stronger?  Or "kaunai"
> because they haven't agreed it.  I think if they're arguing
> about it, it's got to be "kaunai".  And so, finally:
>
>         la berbif. joi la sol. puki casnu.ienai dakaunai poi vlimau le drata

"kaunai" is, I think, meaningless.  Unfortunately, the discussions which
led to "kau" were in the context of the place structure of "djuno", and so
"kau" got associated with knowledge, leading people to believe that "kaunai"
was some sort of counterpart conveying ignorance.  I think this distinction
is entirely unnecessary, and advocate the use of "kau" in all indirect
questions whatever.

For somebody who is new to "le lojbo", you show an amazing grasp of the
language and its issues, and I publicly congratulate you on the depth which
you have achieved in such a short time.

--
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban