WikiDiscuss

---

> On 6/9/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > By this definition,
> > {cusku2} can only be a direct quotation or a
> > description of one: not a translation, not a
> > summary, not an indirect quotation.
>
> Painfully true. Notice how Robin ends up
> writing things
> like {cusku lo glico panra be lu ... li'u}
> because cusku
> can't apparently quote a translation of what
> was said.

I'll take your word for what Robin wrote, but the
point remains.

> > By the
> > xorxesian reasoning, {cu'u} then can only be
> > inserted (somehow) into a direct quotation.
>
> Not so, thanks to the {se du'u} contraption:
> {ko'a cusku lo se du'u brode} can be
> reformulated
> as {brode cu'u ko'a} without violating the
> xorxesian
> BAI rule, which was never meant as an absolute
> but merely as a guide in any case.

If they are only meant as guides, why do you keep
insisting on taking them literally when simpler
and more direct reading make more sense
practically? Loosen up and be practical.

>
> > [By the way, has anyone noticed how screwed
> > up the definition of {du'u} is. By that
> > definition a complete sentence would have the
> > format {ko'a klama du'u li ko'a klama li'u}
> and
> > the corresponding sumti would be {lo du'u be
> li
> > ko'a klama li'u}. These do not parse,
> needless
> > (I hope) to say. While in deep structure a
> > sentence can be a NP, at the surface they
> always
> > require some sort of overt mark. The
> expressions
> > seems always to have been used — even in CLL
> > --parallel to the other abstractors in the
> form
> > "x1 is the proposition that [bridi]," not as
> a
> > relation between a bridi and a sentence.
>
> Not sure what definition you're looking at.
> {NU [bridi] KEI} converts a bridi to a selbri.

Notice the difference between {nu} "X1 IS
STATE/PROCESS/ACTIVITY/ACHIEVEMENT OF [BRIDI]"
and {du'u} "X1 IS PREDICATION [BRIDI] EXPRESSED
BY X2"
So, as noted, x1 is a bridi (in spite of the fact
that can't be a sumti) and x2 is a sentence,
presumably quoted to make it available for use.
It could be argued that it goes the other way, of
course, but it must be one or the other to make
any sense at all (even the bad sense it makes).
As noted, it has regularly been used as "X1 IS
THE PROPOSITION THAT [BRIDI]" and never as
described. It has, in fact never been used as a
relation so far as I can tell.

> The selbri {du'u [bridi] kei} has two places,
> the
> first one for the proposition and the second
> one for
> a sentence that expresses the proposition.
> For example: {ko'a du'u ko'e klama kei ko'i}
> Where {ko'i} refers to the sentence "ko'e
> klama"
> and {ko'a} refers to the proposition expressed
> by
> that sentence.
>
Yes, except that {ko'a} cannot refer to a bridi
since it is a replacement for a sumti. {di'u} or
some such thing could be used in the second
place, since it refers to a sentence.

> > This
> > makes {se du'u} illegitimate by xorxesian
> rules,
> > though this is not a BAI, so the rules may
> not
> > apply]
>
> No idea what you mean, but probably the "rules"
> for BAI don't apply to abstractors, no.

I meant that, since {du'u} is not a relation
(definition to the contrary notwithstanding) {se
du'u} makes no sense, xorxesian rules or not.

> > My impression is that {cusku} has been
> > used more loosely, that it has not been
> treated
> > as a mere generalization of {bacru} and
> {ciska},
> > tied to physical presentation rather than to
> what
> > is intended by that presentation.
>
> I don't think {cusku} is much used other than
> in {cusku lu ... li'u}, {cusku di'u}, {cusku
> di'e}, and
> {cusku lo se du'u ...}, and in the totally made
> up
> {cusku la apasionatas}. What other usages do
> you
> have in mind?

{cusku lo du'u [bridi}} "said that [bridi]"

> > I assume that {pinka} is restricted
> > in the same way.
>
> {pinka} has the advantage of having an "about"
> place,
> so the frequent {te pinka}, "x1 comments about
> x2",
> is not about a text. {di'e pinka ...} is also
> relatively
> common.
>
> > I would suggest loosening both
> > of these a bit.
>
> You mean making {cusku} ambiguous between
> "x1 says words x2" and "x1 expresses meaning
> x2"?

I'm not sure that I agree it is ambiguous — in
Lojban, but yes: "say" in the full "ambiguity" of
the English.