WikiDiscuss

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:12:22 -0800 (PST), John E Clifford wrote:
> Consider
> even {du'o} which is the most generous case I can
> think of outside the causals.

There are plenty of generous cases: {bai}, {cau}, {de'i},
{di'o}, {du'i}, {fa'e}, {ga'a}, {gau}, {ji'e}, {ji'o}, {kai}, {koi},
{ma'i}, {mau}, {me'a}, {pa'a}, {se pi'o}, {se ra'a}, {ra'i},
{ri'i}, {si'u}, {ta'i}, {ti'i}, {ti'u}, {tu'i}, {va'o}, {se va'u}, {zau},
{zu'e}, to list some.

> It does appear
> that your pattern works here, sort of: the sumti
> is the person who know and what he knows is the
> main predication.

Right.

> But that is not quite what the
> original says; the original is using {djuno} as a
> stand in for {certu}, though with a proposition
> (the main bridi) standing in for a generalized
> event description, combined with {xusra} to give
> the more specific proposition. Notice, for
> example, that we do not take the {du'o x} away if
> the proposition happens to be false

We don't? If we find out that {la tom klama le zarci} is false,
we nevertheless keep insisting that {la tom klama le zarci
du'o la djan} is true?

>(indeed, one
> major use for this sort of thing is to put forth
> somewhat suspect stuff) quite differently from
> {djuno}. As far as I can see {x djuno lo du'u y
> broda} is not even implied by {y broda du'o x}
> and the same seems to be the case with many such
> transformations.

Be that as it may, I'm not really looking for exact
transformations but for a guide to the meaning.
In {la tom klama le zarci du'o la djan}, what role does
John play in the going? Is he a knower of anything at all,
a knower of anything somehow related to the going, or a
knower that the going takes place? I'm arguing that
it can't mean that we go ta a market that John knows
or that we are known to John, but John doesn't know
that we are going to the market. It puts John as a
knower that the going takes place. If the knowing is
restricted to one of the other sumti, then {du'o la djan}
needs to be attached to it.

> Oh, I have been reading you as saying that the
> transformation — if once we could figure out
> what it is — *is* the meaning of the sentence.

No, I have only used the transfromations to show why
some of the examples provided seemed odd to me.
The meaning of the sentence is often different with
regards to the things actually claimed. The transformations
help to understand what is related to what and how.

> > All variations will appear on the dictionary,
> > so we want
> > examples for all, even if they are unlikely to
> > end up being
> > used.
>
> And what I am saying is that we should not put in
> these oblique forms unless they have some usage.

Actually, I sort of agree with that. In some cases, only the
oblique form has usage ({se pi'o} for example), so the example
for the {pi'o} entry would use {se pi'o}. There shouldn't be
separate entries for the SE-converted BAIs. All the useful
transformations should be under the same head word.

> And in particular, we should not prejudge what
> their uses might be on the basis of some abstract
> rule which ignores the rather considerable role
> of human ingenuity that still creeps into Lojban.

We are defining the language, we should be as precise
in our definitions as we can. That is not to say that we
can't define some words as having ample meanings if
that's what we want.

mu'o mi'e xorxes