[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
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.
{mi tolmorji le du'u makau zukte}, "I forgot who dunnit". Is that
the same as "I forgot that {someone dunnit, for a known someone}"?
I can remember that someone dunnit, for a known (to someone else)
someone, and yet forget who it was that dunnit.
I haven't studied or thought about {kau}, so who knows, mebbe you're
right. But this doesn't convince me.
The way we sorted it out is to say that {lo'i du'u makau broda}
is the set of answers to {ma broda}. It is not absolutely clear
whether negative answers are included, that's why I'm in doubt
about the instantiation bit, but I think they are. If I know
that nobody did it, can I say "I know who did it: nobody"? I
think yes.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail