Re: Quantifiers

[Iain Alexander <ia@stryx.demon.co.uk>]

In message  <9505250159.aa18690@punt2.demon.co.uk> jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:> la dilyn cusku di'e
> > (I wouldn't necessarily require that uses of {ka} with and without
> > {kau} appear in the same locations; as I pointed out, it doesn't
> > happen with {du'u} in the first place of {facki}.  Just something to
> > think about.)
>
> Why not?
>
>         mi facki le du'u le cukta cu cpana le jubme
>         I discover that the book is on the table.
>
>         mi facki le du'u makau cpana le jubme
>         I discover what's on the table.

.u'i'i'i'i You appear to have interpreted Dylan's "first place of
{facki}" as "second place of {facki}", whereas I think he meant "first
place of {fatci}".

        *le du'u makau cpana le jubme cu fatci*

is grammatical, but not meaningful in the sense we usually think of
{fatci}.  I can however think of circumstances where we would say
something similar in English, meaning that the contents of the table-top
are a matter of fact, not open to dispute.  I'm not sure if this would
be malglico, or if there's a better way of expressing this in Lojban.

I can't however think of interpretations
for the corresponding bridi with {jetnu} or {jitfa}.

--
Iain Alexander                    ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
                    I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk