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

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la dilyn cusku di'e
> 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}...)

Why is the fact that the book can be there a fact, but the fact that it
actually is there is not a fact?

>  > 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?

No, not at all.  All that's required is that there be an answer to the
question.

> 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.)

It's not always true because the answer to the {ma} question depends on
the context.  If there was a recent statement about what's on the table,
I would take that to be the alluded answer.

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

Of course not.  It requires that there be an answer to the question {ma
cpana le jubme}, which may or may not come from a previous statement.
The statement then claims that the speaker knows the answer.  That it
has to be a true answer in this case comes from the meaning of {djuno},
not of {kau}.  On the other hand,

        mi smadi le du'u makau cpana le jubme

does not require that the answer in question be a true one.  The speaker
may conjecture that there is a book on the table without there actually
being one.

>  > 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".)

That's because you are interpreting "what" as the subject of the phrase,
which is the correct interpretation in that English sentence.  But in
Lojban it is the whole du'u-phrase that is said to be a fact.  I don't
see why we should require a direct word for word translation to English.
What the Lojban says is that "the answer to the question 'What is on the
table?' is a fact", and what answer is alluded to has to be groked from
the context.

> Let me sleep on this.

i ko pluka sipna

> mu'o mi'e dilyn.

co'o mi'e xorxes