Re: Indirect questions

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> >> >> >> {ko cusku le sedu'u xukau do badri} = "Say whether you're
> >> >> >> sad".
> >It means "ko cusku the text type that expresses the proposition(oid)
> >(that is expressed in Lojban by) {xu kau do badri}". So,
> >noting your corrections, but basically sticking to my original
> >contention, I think {ko cusku le sedu'u xukau do badri} means
> >not "Say whether you're sad" but "ko cusku lu xu kau mi badri li`u".
>
> Why do you accept that you have to change {do} to {mi}, but
> not that you have to change {xukau} to either {ja'a} or {na}?
> They are both changes that have to be made in going from
> proposition to text-type through the pertinent context.

I don't see that xu kau is deictic at all. "She wondered whether
he was hungry" does not vary in meaning according to when and where
who says it to who.

> >Ah... I think the light is dawning. I reckon I sort of grasp
> >your point now. Hmm. If {mi djuno le du`u xu kau ko`a badri}
> >means "for every x, a jetlai of le du`u ko`a badri, I know
> >that x is jetlai of le du`u ko`a badri". The crucial thing
> >is that this only makes sense when {Q kau} occurs within a
> >proposition that itself is an argument of an epistemic
> >predicate. I no think {ko cusku le sedu'u xukau do badri}
> >just doesn't make sense at all.
>
> Why not? For every x a se jetlai (not a jetlai) of le du'u ko'a badri,
> express that x is a sejetlai of le du'u ko'a badri.

No problem. That's {ko seljufrygau le du`u xu kau do badri}.

> Or, in my more pedestrian version: ko cusku lu mi ja'a badri li'u
> a lu mi na badri li'u

Sort of... Obviously it doesn't mean the right thing, though;
it's only implicit that the se cusku should be truthful.

> >> All very complicated. There is also {bacru}
> >> for text-types.
> >
> >I thought {bacru} meant to make a vocal sound. A text-type is
> >not a vocal sound.
>
> Well, bacru has always been used as in: {mi bacru zo a},
> and I thought we said {zo a} was a text-type.

Well, either "se bacru" means "is (a) a text-type whose token
is uttered, or (b) a sound", or usage is wrong, or we were
wrong about zo (and either my original idea was right or
zo itself denotes both text-types and tokens).

I predict that if this is left to ordinary usage, words like
"bacru" and "zo" (and many many others) will become homonymous.

> But I'm not sure
> what's the point of  separating what I think you mean by
> text-type and the one and only sound-pattern associated
> with it. Of course you can utter zo a without even being aware
> that it is a Lojban text-type. Is that what you object to?

A text-type is normally thought of as a sound-meaning pair.
I haven't thought through the implications of equating
sound-patterns and text-types.

> >> I don't know about {selvlagau}, maybe {seljufrygau}.
> >
> >Both are suitable. Curious that one must use a lujvo for
> >so common a concept as "say".
>
> But {selvlagau} would only work for single words.
> For example {ko selvlagau le du'u mi klama le zarci}
> means "Say in a word that I go to the market". (Or in
> many words if you like, but each of them must mean
> that I go to the market.)

How come? Where does the restriction to single words come from?
"pa valsi" is a single word, but "valsi" doesn't mean "is a
single word". After all, {lei ci valsi cu valsi} is sensical,
isn't it?

--And