Re: {du'u} (was Re: Quantifiers)

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la dilyn di'e spusku la i,n
>  > > ... I can however think of circumstances where we would
>  > > say something similar in English, meaning that the contents of
>  > > the table-top are a matter of fact, not open to dispute.  I'm not
>  > > sure if this would be malglico, or if there's a better way of
>  > > expressing this in Lojban.
>
> This would be malglico: a {fatci} is supposed to be a "fact in the
> absolute", without reference to any circumstances.  (I thing it's
> equivalent to {jetnu befe zi'o}.)

Any sentence about concrete objects makes reference to some
circumstance.  How can {le cukta cu cpana le jubme} be a fact without
any reference to the circumstance that the book happens to be on the
table?

> la xorxes. cusku di'e
>  > ... The sentence
>  > with {le cukta} implies the one with {makau}, which says the
>  > same but without mentioning what's on the table, just as in the
>  > case of {facki}.
>
> No, I disagree: {makau} is different from {da}.  I don't think the
> sentence with {makau} has any meaning.

I agree {makau} is different from {da}, very different.  {le du'u noda
cpana le jubme cu fatci} also implies that {le du'u makau cpana le jubme
cu fatci}.  I am not claiming that this is a very useful thing to say,
though, so I don't think I'll be using it much

>  > > I can't however think of interpretations
>  > > for the corresponding bridi with {jetnu} or {jitfa}.
>  >
>  > How about something like:
>  >
>  >         i la djan pu cusku le sedu'u le cukta cu cpana le jubme
>  >         ije le plise cu cnita le stizu
>  >         i le du'u makau cpana le jubma cu jetnu iku'i le du'u
>  >         makau cu cnita le stizu cu jitfa  i le tamca enai le plise
>  >         cu cnita le stizu
>
> I assume you wanted to have John say two things, but you got it a bit
> wrong (as you pointed out to me earlier :-);

Oops!

> you could say
>
>          i la djan pu cusku le sedu'u ge le cukta cu cpana le jubme
>          gi le plise cu cnita le stizu

Yes, let's say I said that.

> or
>
>          i la djan pu cusku le sedu'u tu'e le cukta cu cpana le jubme
>          ije le plise cu cnita le stizu tu'u

This one doesn't parse. You can't put a tu'e-tu'u inside a du'u.

> or use a direct quotation, if appropriate.  I don't believe there's
> any purely afterthought way of saying this; even {bo} wouldn't work,
> right?

No, {bo} doesn't work either.

> Anyway, I disagree with your usage.  If I wanted to say such a thing,
> I'd leave out the {makau}s entirely, since it's obvious that the
> places should be filled with {le cukta} and {le plise}, respectively.

I'm not saying it's useful or nice, just that for me it has meaning.

> The distinction between the two kinds of uses of {du'u} seems to be
> that between a predication and a piece of information.

Do you mean that {kau} makes sense for information but not for
predication?  I think all predications can be thought of as information,
I can think of {fatci} as "information x1 is factual/undisputable".

co'o mi'e xorxes