[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Re: RE: Re: lo'edu'u

cu'u la xod

(Of course, this is disingenuous, because the typical box (mode) is of
course brown --- cardboard. Should have stuck with home cities of
Americans.)
I think that by not seizing the liferaft {of interpreting lo'e as either 
mode or median}, but allowing ambiguity between the two, you've doomed
yourself to the riptides of eternal jboske.


Agreed-ish. And right now, I vote mode.
Watch it! You're trying to give kau a sane and consistent meaning. Which, 
of course, collides with the way Jorge and his disciples use it.


*chuckle* Don't know if anyone has any disciples here though...


For
instance, in that case, makau would mean "I know the value, but I want you 
to tell me anyway".


I'd rather sleaze out with "one knows the value" (may not be me!)

Oh, and I'm confused about your counterexample, Jorge:


The "known" part is not right. It comes from most examples of
{kau} being based on {djuno}, but it is not really part of {kau}.
We can say {noda djuno le du'u makau zukte}, "nobody knows who
did it", for example, where {kau} obviously does not mean that
the value is known. It is not even clear that it need be
instantiated.
But, if {le du'u makau zukte} means "someone dunnit, for a known 'someone'", then {pa da djuno ledu'u makau zukte} means "one person knows that {someone dunnit, for a known someone}", and {no da djuno ledu'u makau zukte} means "no person knows that {someone dunnit, for a known someone}". I think there's a scoping effect here: whether the x1 of djuno is filled or not, or by what, {le du'u makau zukte} asserts the instantiation of the sumti. If the x1 of djuno is 0, then that whole jufra is not known by anyone, so the instantiation is held to be bogus anyway.
I haven't studied or thought about {kau}, so who knows, mebbe you're right. But this doesn't convince me.
-------------------- =================================---------------------- Dr Nick Nicholas. Unimelb, Aus. nickn@hidden.email; www.opoudjis.net 
"Electronic editors have to live in hope: hope that the long-awaited
standards for encoding texts for the computer will arrive; hope that they 
will be workable; hope that software will appear to handle these texts;
hope that all the scholars of the world will have computers which can
drive the software (which does not yet exist) to handle the texts (which
have not yet been made) encoded in standard computer markup (which has not yet been devised). To hope for all this requires a considerable belief in 
the inevitability of progress and in the essential goodness of mankind."
(Peter M.W. Robinson)