Re: la'e

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

Lojbab to John:
> >> If we know what "xukau ko'a badri" means as a Lojban predication, which
> >> we must if we can talk about "ledu'u xukau ko'a badri", then "le sedu'u
> >> xukau ko'a badri" makes sense.
> >
> >Not so.  "kau" is not defined (at least not by me, and *a fortiori*
> >not by the refgram) outside du'u-clauses.  It may mean something
> >in ka-clauses, too.  In main clauses it has no known meaning.
>
> OK.  But "du'u xukau ko'a badri kei cei broda"
> is a du'u clause.  le broda is the x1 of that clause, and le se broda is the
> x2 of that clause, treating the entirety as a selbri. The x1 cannot
> have a meaning without reference to the x2, since they are defined in
> relation to each other by the nature of du'u X being a 2 place presicate.
>
> Since we purport to know what ledu'u xukau ko'a badri means we must therefore
> implicitly know what lesedu'u xukau ko'a badri means.

This is simply not true. (Or at least, it has not been proved
true, and is certainly not necessarily true.)

The meaning of xukau varies according to which selbri the abstraction
containing xukau is a sumti of. So while I might accept that
{xukau} makes sense in the false bridi {djuno le se du`u xu kau
ko`a badri}, because we do know what {xukau} means in {djuno le se
du`u xu kau ko`a badri}, it does not follow that we know what
{xukau} means in {cusku le se du`u xu kau ko`a badri}, for
we do not know what {xukau} means in the false bridi {cusku le du`u
xu kau ko`a badri}.

--And