[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
To instantiate something is to know its idenity. So, what does "It's not important who killed Laura"mean? That the 'who' have a denotation? But the 'who' *does* have a denotation. This statement can truthfully be said even if we all know that BOB dunnit. Rather, what is being deemed important or not is whether someone is instantiating the variable or not. And instantiating is knowing. It's not a truth about the world: the same state of affairs can lead to me knowing the predication instantiated, and you not knowing it instantiated. In the 'objective' real world, every entity is instantiated. So I have no problem making the meaning of {kau} contingent on a particular knower, in *all* instances.
So I would take
{.i na vanji fa ledu'u makau catra la lauras}
as meaning
{,i na vajni fa lenu zo'e djuno ledu'u makau catra la lauras}
and thereby I use a type-raising, performative salvator. And if someone
thinks the two mean something different, let them tell me what that is.
And it's because I assume that {kau} always implies {djuno} or something like that somewhere along the line, that I see Jorge say {.i makau skari} for "any colour", and I freak.
We know that {kau} is defined as something that does indirect questions. Indirect questions are bound up with {djuno}. I have less than no problem binding {kau} with {djuno} throughout its usage. Why the big rush to emancipate it? Why *should* it mean something disjoint from {djuno}?
### ki egeire arga ta sthqia ta qlimmena;#Nick Nicholas, French/Italian san ahdoni pou se nuxtia anoijiata # University of Melbourne thn wra pou kelahda epnixth, wimena! # nickn@hidden.email stis murwdies kai st' anqismena bata.# http://www.opoudjis.net-- N. Kazantzakhs, Tertsines: Xristos#