[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> When you say 'I know who killed Laura", you're of course saying you
> know "Bob killed Laura". So:
>
> .i ma du'u makau catra la lauras
> .i ledu'u la bab. catra la lauras cudu'u makau catra la lauras
> .i lo'i du'u makau catra la lauras cu se cmima po'o ledu'u la bab.
> catra la lauras
>
> When you are curious about who killed Laura, you are curious about the
> answers to the question "who killed Laura". That means that you are
> curious about the sentence "Bob killed Laura", but without knowing it
> yet.
>
> When you claim that "who killed Laura" is important, you're making a
> logical claim, and a discourse claim. The logical claim is that the
> statement which happens to be the answer to the question "who killed
> Laura" is important --- that is, "Bob killed Laura". You need to be
> able to speak of the answer to the question, without knowing what it is.
>
> .i vajni fa ledu'u makau catra la lauras.
> .i vajni fa le danfu be lu ma catra la lauras li'u
> .i vajni fa ledu'u la bab. catra la lauras.
Is this approach compatible with unbound ko'a?
> The discourse claim is "Bob as opposed to anyone else killed Laura."
> This is focus, and pragmatic information --- on what is more or less
> important in a sentence. This isn't semantics, but information
> organisation, and any attempt to moosh this in to {kau} is
> illegitimate, as far as I'm concerned. That's what {bi'u} is for.
Perhaps not bi'u, but some UI. If we're discussing the killer, then it's
already bi'unai, even if we haven't revealed the identity.
> The claim "what I eat depends on what is in the fridge", as far as I
> can tell, involves not only ma kau, but also jei and masses. So
>
> lei jei da cu danfu lu mi citka ma li'u
> cu se xlura le danfu be lu ma se vasru le lankytanxe li'u
>
> ro da zo'u: leijei da du'u mi citka makau
> ce se xlura le'i du'u makau se vasru le lankytanxe
>
> So the truth of "I eat cheese" and "I eat ham", as a mass of
> propositions in the general case (i.e. jointly), are determined by what
> the denotation of "what's in the fridge is" --- mainly, by the contents
> of the set {"cheese is in the fridge", "ham is in the fridge"}.
>
> Is this it?
roda 1de zo'u de fancu le jei ly. vasru da kei le jei mi citka da
--
jipno se kerlo
re mei re mei degji kakne