Re: {kau} and {du'u} and {jei}

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> I looked at some of that usage, and I'm not sure I understand it. Here are
> some examples from Nick's texts:
> 
> > The question which is currently preoccupying the English press is:
> > what will become of Ringo Starr's tonsils?
> >
> > .i lei gicygu'e karnysku cu se cinri lo preti
> > po'u ledu'u le moklrtonsilo. be la ringos. cu bu'akaunai
> 
> Why {kaunai}?

At that point, "kau" was taken to mean "[known!]", from overgeneralization
of its common use with "djuno".  So "kaunai" was used for "[unknown!]".

> (Also, I prefer to use {mo} rather than {bu'a}, but it seems
> anything will do.)

Yes.  Since neither "mo" nor "bu'a" has any semantics of its own, they
are interchangeable.  "mo" is shorter.  Using a real predicate, say
"morsi", would suggest that it is the correct value.

> There are other instances of this {kaunai} where I would
> use {kau}, I don't understand the distinction.

I think in all cases these should be changed to "kau", since we no longer
think of "kau" as necessarily associated with knowledge.

> Also there is one use where {kau} is not inside a {du'u} clause:
> 
> > no'i la xrist. ba cpacu loi vanju {mu'i lenu pinxe kei}
> > gi'e te preti fo ko'a {felenu ko'a djica lenu la xrist. dunda dakau ko'a}
> >
> > Christ then took wine to drink, and asked the man what he wanted Christ to
> > give him.
> 
> I would change {le nu ...} to {le du'u ...}, so I don't think this is
> really any different usage. (Again, I prefer {makau})

I find the mixture of "te" conversion and "fo...fe" tags confusing, though
not incorrect.  Since x2 of preti is a "subject", perhaps this falls under
the use of "le ka ... dakau" that you discuss later.  Alternatively, use
the x1 place with "le se du'u" which is the equivalent of a quotation.

> On the same topic, how do we translate "whether" in places like
> "I know whether John likes apples".
> 
> I think it should be:
> 
>         mi djuno le du'u xukau la djan nelci lei plise

This seems like a good translation to me.

> (and the {xu} could even be dropped), but according to the grammar it's:
> 
>         mi djuno le jei la djan nelci lei plise

Perhaps "tu'a le jei" would be more accurate.

> To me, the x2 of djuno is a fact (i.e. a du'u abstraction), and it can't
> be a truth value. Then again, I can't really think of any use for
> {le jei ...}, is it really a short form for {le du'u xukau ...}?

It comes up in the arguments for "kanxe" and "vlina" and such.

> Also, the grammar says:
> 
> > 7.5)  mi kucli le du'u la frank. cu bebna [kei]
> >       I am curious about whether Frank is a fool.
> >
> > and here "du'u" could probably be replaced by "jei" without much change
> > in meaning.
> 
> I think that should be:
> 
>         mi kucli le du'u xukau la frank cu bebna
> 
> and without the {xukau}, it would mean: "I am curious about the fact
> that Frank is a fool." This is not a common idiom in English, but to
> be curious about something shouldn't be restricted to being uncertain
> about its truth value.

Hmm.  I have to think on this one further.  Off the cuff, though, the
use of a "le du'u" construction doesn't necessarily assert the truth
of the contained bridi.  (This happens for semantic reasons in the x2
place of "djuno", because if something is known, it must be true.)
So "the >fact< that" is misleading if it is taken to be a truth claim.
Some rewording is probably in order.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.