Re: {du'u} (was Re: Quantifiers)

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

la xorxes cusku di'e
 > Any sentence about concrete objects makes reference to some
 > circumstance. How can {le cukta cu cpana le jubme} be a fact
 > without any reference to the circumstance that the book happens
 > to be on the table?

It can't, as far as I know.  (Well, maybe you could say

        le du'u le cukta cu ka'e cpana le jubme cu fatci

and then just elide the {ka'e}...)

la xorxes. pu cusku di'e
 > >  > ... The sentence
 > >  > with {le cukta} implies the one with {makau}, which says the
 > >  > same but without mentioning what's on the table, just as in the
 > >  > case of {facki}.

mi di'e spusku
 > > No, I disagree: {makau} is different from {da}.  I don't think the
 > > sentence with {makau} has any meaning.

xy cusku di'e
 > I agree {makau} is different from {da}, very different.
 > {le du'u noda cpana le jubme cu fatci} also implies that
 > {le du'u makau cpana le jubme cu fatci}. I am not claiming that
 > this is a very useful thing to say, though, so I don't think I'll be
 > using it much

Then I don't understand at all what you're proposing.  Does there need
to be a previous statement about what's on the table?  I _really_ don't
like that, since there's no such marking.  Why wouldn't

        le du'u makau cpana le jubme cu jetnu

always be true under your interpretation?  (Actually, that may make
sense.  I'll need to think about it.)

The statement
        mi djuno ledu'u makau cpana le jubme
does not require any previous statement as to what's on the table.

 > > The distinction between the two kinds of uses of {du'u} seems to be
 > > that between a predication and a piece of information.
 >
 > Do you mean that {kau} makes sense for information but not for
 > predication?

Yes; I think (or thought) {kau} _signalled_ the shift from predication
to information.

 > I think all predications can be thought of as information,
 > I can think of {fatci} as "information x1 is factual/undisputable".

This is an intriguing idea, though it clashes heavily with my natlang
intuitions.  The sentence

        What is on the table is factual.

just doesn't make sense.  (Though it does make more sense with
"undisputable".)

Let me sleep on this.

 > > mu'o mi'e. dilyn.
 > >
 > co'o mi'e xorxes

mu'o mi'e dilyn.