xu kau

[tengo]

coi

I have read about {xu} and {kau}, and I find most usage of {xu kau}
odd. As I understand {xu}, it puts the main bridi into question, not a
sub-bridi. Consider the following example:

do djuno lo du'u la .frank. cu bebna
You know that Frank is foolish

First I add {xu}:

do djuno lo du'u xu la .frank. cu bebna
Is it true that you know that Frank is foolish?
Do you know that Frank is foolish?

So, it's now a question. Then I add {kau}:

do djuno lo du'u xu kau la .frank. cu bebna
Whether you know that Frank is foolish.

Which is what seems odd to me. The CLL has an example in chapter 11:

7.3) mi djuno le jei la frank. cu bebna [kei]
I know the truth-value of Frank being a fool.

And later in the text: "I know whether or not Frank is a fool", which
seems to be the intended meaning of {mi djuno lo du'u xu kau
la .frank. cu bebna}.

So, is there a special rule for interpretation of {xu kau}? If yes,
where is it defined? Is the {jei}-version still correct with current
definitions of {jei} and {djuno}?

[Jonathan Jones]

I always thought of xukau as intended to mean you're asking a rhetorical question.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[.arpis.]

Wouldn't it be better to use {pau nai} in that case?

mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday 04 June 2012 09:21:13 tengo wrote:
> coi
>
> I have read about {xu} and {kau}, and I find most usage of {xu kau}
> odd. As I understand {xu}, it puts the main bridi into question, not a
> sub-bridi. Consider the following example:
>
> do djuno lo du'u la .frank. cu bebna
> You know that Frank is foolish
>
> First I add {xu}:
>
> do djuno lo du'u xu la .frank. cu bebna
> Is it true that you know that Frank is foolish?
> Do you know that Frank is foolish?

No, it's "You know that is Frank foolish?". This doesn't sound like good
English, but that's what it means. It could be interpreted as "You know
whether Frank is foolish. Is he?".

> So, it's now a question. Then I add {kau}:
>
> do djuno lo du'u xu kau la .frank. cu bebna
> Whether you know that Frank is foolish.
>
> Which is what seems odd to me. The CLL has an example in chapter 11:
>
> 7.3) mi djuno le jei la frank. cu bebna [kei]
> I know the truth-value of Frank being a fool.
>
> And later in the text: "I know whether or not Frank is a fool", which
> seems to be the intended meaning of {mi djuno lo du'u xu kau
> la .frank. cu bebna}.
>
> So, is there a special rule for interpretation of {xu kau}? If yes,
> where is it defined? Is the {jei}-version still correct with current
> definitions of {jei} and {djuno}?

"jei broda" can be used as a shorter equivalent to "du'u xu kau broda". But
like "xu" by itself, "xu kau" can be placed after any component of a sentence
to indicate that it is the one in question:

mi djuno lo du'u la .frank. xu kau bebna
I know whether it is Frank that is a fool.
We all know that someone is a fool, but we don't all know who it is. I know
whether it's Frank.

Pierre

--
gau do li'i co'e kei do

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis]

On 4 June 2012 10:21, tengo <yurock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 7.3)   mi djuno le jei la frank. cu bebna [kei]
>       I know the truth-value of Frank being a fool.
>
> And later in the text: "I know whether or not Frank is a fool", which

This example doesn't make sense. Assume that {la .frank. bebna} has
the same truth
value as {la .djordj. klama le zarci} (for example, both are
positively true), then
{le jei la .frank. bebna} and {le jei la .djordj. klama le zarci}
refer to the same thing, and
Example 7.3 is equivalent to
{mi djuno le jei la .djordj. klama le zarci},
while its presumed translation is certainly not equivalent to
"I know whether or not George goes to the market".

A more sensible bridi would be
{mi djuno lo du'u ma kau jei la .frank. bebna}
"I know what the truth-value or Frank being a fool is."
It is as different from
{mi djuno lo du'u xu kau la .frank. bebna}
as these questions are different:
{ma jei la .frank. bebna}
{xu la .frank. bebna}

This is a common problem arising from naively translating terms of an English
sentence at the wrong time. For example,
"I know the result of '2+2'"
is certainly not equivalent to
"I know 4".

>
> So, is there a special rule for interpretation of {xu kau}? If yes,
> where is it defined? Is the {jei}-version still correct with current
> definitions of {jei} and {djuno}?
>

I think of du'u-kau constructions as formal questions, as plain du'u are formal
predications. When they are the x2 of {djuno}, it should be read as "x1 knows
the answer to question x2 ...".

The jei-version presented in CLL has always been nonsense.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

[tengo]

Felipe Gonçalves Assis wrote:
> {mi djuno lo du'u ma kau jei la .frank. bebna}
> "I know what the truth-value or Frank being a fool is."

I agree with this one, assuming that "or" is a typo (should be "of").

Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > do djuno lo du'u xu la .frank. cu bebna
> > Is it true that you know that Frank is foolish?
> > Do you know that Frank is foolish?
>

> No, it's "You know that is Frank foolish?". This doesn't sound like good
> English, but that's what it means. It could be interpreted as "You know
> whether Frank is foolish. Is he?".

So, {do djuno lo du'u xu la .frank. cu bebna} contains a positive
claim ("you know whether Frank is foolish"). Which means that the
scope of {xu} is limited. Is this defined? From what I have read so
far, placement of {xu} indicates focus of question, but its scope is
always the main bridi (a jufra with {xu} does not contain a positive
claim). Consider the following:

.i do djuno lo du'u xu la .frank. cu bebna
.i ja'a go'i
.i na go'i

With long-scope {xu} it means:

Is it true that you know that Frank is foolish?

Indeed, I know that Frank is foolish.
No. It is false that I know that Frank is foolish.

With short-scope {xu}:

You know whether Frank is foolish. Is he?

I indeed know whether Frank is foolish.
I don't know whether Frank is foolish.

Here are some more examples of different interpretations of {xu}.

.i lo nu xu la .djan. catke le ckukajna cu pu rinka lo nu ri farlu
.i ja'a go'i
.i na go'i

Long-scope {xu}:
Is it true that John's pushing of the bookshelf caused it to fall?
Yes, John's pushing of the bookshelf indeed caused it to fall.
No. It is false that John's pushing of the bookshelf caused it to
fall.

Short-scope {xu}:
Something caused the bookshelf to fall. Was it John's pushing?
Something indeed caused the bookshelf to fall. It may or may not be
John's pushing.
It is false that something (which may or may not be John's pushing)
caused the bookshelf to fall.

.i la .djan. pu klama zo'e noi ke'a zarci xu lo cidja
.i ja'a go'i
.i na go'i

Long-scope {xu}:
Is it true that John went to the grocery *store*?
Yes, John indeed went to the grocery store.
No. It is false that John went to the grocery store.

Short-scope {xu}:
John went somewhere. Is it the grocery *store*, where he went?
John indeed went somewhere, which may or may not be the grocery store.
It is false that John went there, whether that is the grocery store or
not.

What interpretation is correct, and why?

[Michael Turniansky]

    I think the issue really isn't with the "xu", but the fact that NA is scoped over the whole bridi (despite xorxes' objection (the rationality of which I am not debating here, as it applies to bridi-tails, and so forth) that it should be interpreted as naku in place (rather than in the prenex)).  So "na go'i" -> "naku  la .djan. pu klama zo'e noi ke'a zarci lo cidja" And therefore, we cannot decide where the falsehood lies, simply that such incident as described did not take place.  It would seem a more meaningful response would be for the answerer to treat the questioner as if he asked what he really intended, "la .djan. pu klama zo'e noi ke'a mo lo cidja" and not try to shortcut with "go'i": "na go'i .i la  djan klama lo cange lo cidja"  or "na'i go'i .i la djan pu ca'o catlu le vidni"

                      --gejyspa

[tengo]

I think the issue really isn't with the "xu", but the fact that NA is scoped over the whole bridi

 
I think, here, function of {na} is very simple. Let's suppose, the "previous" sentence is {.i ta mlatu xu}. Then
{go'i} = {ta mlatu} = "that's true"
{na go'i} = {ta na mlatu} = {na ku ta mlatu} = "that's false"

But that's not the point. More important is that {ta mlatu xu} does not contain a claim. The questioner usually doesn't even know whether that is a cat or not. Now does {do jinvi lo du'u ta mlatu xu ku ta} contain a claim? Does it say that you indeed have some opinion about that object?

[Michael Turniansky]

xu is a UI, and like all UI, scopes only over the previous word (if
that word itself defines a larger scope, such as a LE or NU or FUhE,
then of course it covers the entire scope of that.) It also
implicitly acts somewhat ba'e-ish, in that it emphasizes that
word/structure. So when you say, "do jinvi lo du'u ta mlatu xu ku ta"
you are indeed making the claim that the listener has an opinion,
equivalent to the English "You think that's a /cat/?!" ("xu do jinvi
lo du'u ta mlatu kei ta" or the equivalent "do jinvi lo du'u ta mlatu
kei ta vau xu", on the other hand are in fact asking whether you have
any opinion at all. ("Is it true that you think that's a cat?")_
Nonetheless, I still maintain that when you answer "na go'i", you are
not, formally speaking, negating just the xu "in place" if you will,
but the entire xu-less bridi, and therefore are not answering the
question you think you are answering. Now it could fairly be argued
that I am wrong, and that since we have things like "na'i" to answer
the question "I don't have any opinions at all; what are you talking
about?", that "na" should just scope over the sub-bridi, but I think
if that's what you really want you should say (maybe??) "go'i naku"
(since this implies the second of the terbri is the only thing
negated) . Of course, in informal conversation, we all know what ""na
go'i" is intended to mean, so no pressure...

--gejyspa

[.arpis.]

I don't have hard evidence to disagree with you with, but that just feels wrong. It seems to me that discursives focus on one word but taint the entire bridi (when left outside of quotations).

On the other hand, my interpretation of {xu} seems like it can be replaced by putting {xu} at the beginning and {ba'e} marking the asked word...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.

To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.