Re: Beginner question on meaning of "le ... xu ku" and "le

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

la nunmorsi cusku di`e:
> >> le cutci ku xu se citka le mlatu
> >>   Is it the shoes which are eaten by the cat?
> >
> >Yes. That's hardly a beginner's question!

I was certainly right about that, as your reply shows.
It's a relief to find someone asking trickier questions than
I do: now Lojbab will chide you rather than me.

> >> le cutci xu ku se citka le mlatu
> >>   Is what is being eaten by the cat correctly described as shoes?
>
> >I would translate the second as:
> >
> >   Is it the shoes that the cat is eating?
> >
> >- I don't know if you consider that a significant difference from
> >your version.
>
> With a simple selbri there isn't any significant meaningful difference,
> as the answer will be the same for both.  The second question is
> slightly different from the first, and I was trying to capture that
> slight difference in English.  However, a more complex description:
>
>   le blanu cutci xu ku se citka
>     Is the blue type-of thing being eaten shoes?
>
>   le blanu xu cutci ku se citka
>     Are the shoes being eaten blue?
>
>   le blanu cutci ku xu se citka
>     Are the blue shoes that which are being eaten?
>
> makes the distinction more obvious.

I think the answer your "beginner's question" is that there isn't
an answer, because you're the first person to have pondered it.

Anyway, although I get your point, I don't think your
English translations are spot on. I would instead offer:

>   le blanu cutci xu ku se citka

Is it the blue SHOES that were eaten?

>   le blanu xu cutci ku se citka

Is it the BLUE shoes that were eaten?

>   le blanu cutci ku xu se citka

Is it the blue shoes that were eaten?

> So I think there is a subtle difference between:
>
> le cutci ku xu se citka
>  and
> le cutci xu ku se citka

Yes. Neat.

> The first is questioning:
> xu le cutci ku du le se citka
>   Is it true that the shoes are identical with that which is being
> eaten.

Yes: is it the shoes, as opposed to something else, that are
eaten.

> The second:
> le se citka ku cutci xu
>   Is it shoes that that which is being eaten are?
>
> The meaning of which I don't think "Is it the shoes that the cat is
> eating" captures.

This is where I disagree with you. "Is it shoes that that which is
being eaten are?" is a reasonable translation of {le se citka ku
cutci xu}, though it would better correspond to a veridical
sumti:

     cutci xu fa ko`a bi`u poi citka ke`a

as opposed to your version, which is equivalent to:

     cutci xu fa ko`a bi`u voi citka ke`a

{le cutci xu ku se citka} is equivalent to:

     citka ko`a bi`u voi ke`a cutci xu

{le cutci ku xu se citka} is equivalent to:

     citka ko`a bi`u voi ke`a cutci ku xu

> [I'll just go on for those who haven't thought about this, and to
> clarify my own thinking]
>
> The first presupposes the existence of {le cutci ku} and {se citka}, and
> asks if that fills the x1 place of {se citka}, questioning a sumti.

I agree with this.

> The second presupposes the existence of the x1 place of {se citka} and
> asks if {le cutci ku} is a correct description of it, questioning the
> descriptive selbri.

I don't think this is correct. I think it asks whether the things
that are *shoes*, as opposed to something else other than shoes,
are eaten.

> And there's the difference, whether a sumti or a selbri is being
> questioned.
>
> For an analogous use of {ma}:
>
> ma se citka
>   What is it that is being eaten?
>
> le mo ku se citka
>   How is that which is being eaten described?

I don't reckon that's altogether a good translation. It's more like:

   the what's-its-name is being eaten

where this assertion also contains a request to the addressee to
supply some description of the thing being eaten.

> The first requires a sumti, while the second a selbri.
>
> The exchange:
>
> ma se citka
>   ti
> ti mo
>   cutci
>
> Is equivalent to:
>
> le mo ku se citka
>   cutci

I don't think so, for reasons I've tried to indicate above.
To combine your exchange in a single pair, I'd suggest:

   A: citka ma poi mo
   B: ti poi ke`a cutci

> (btw, what's the convention for dialogues of this nature?)
>
> And finally:
>
> lu le blanu xu cutci xu ku se citka li'u na mintu lu le blanu cutci ku
> xu se citka li'u
> .i le go'i cu mintu lu le blanu xu co'e ku se citka .ija le co'e cutci
> xu ku go'i li'u
> .i le se go'e cu mintu lu xu le se citka cu du le blanu cutci li'u

Excuse my not commenting on this: you've sent me into cerebral
overload....

> All this because I was taken by the versatility of {xu}. :)  And it does
> require use to fully understand a part of the language.  Now I really
> know what it means for {xu} to question the grammatical structure to
> which it is attached.  The possible mechanism for expanding multiple
> questions to a string of sentences with one question each and the other
> questioned places filled with "unspecified" helps make sense of that as
> well.

--And