Re: Indirect questions

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
>  >A nungasnu. The speaker is a gasnu. The text is a nungasnu.
> >The text type is some kind of abstract intensional thingy.
>
> From what you say below, I take it that you're calling {lu ... li'u}
> a text type. If that is so, I don't know what would be a text.
> Maybe {lu'e lu ... li'u}?

An utterance, or text-token, exists in space-time. A sentence,
or text-type does not; it is abstract.

On reflection, I now think that it makes more sense for Zo,
lu, zoi, etc. to denote text-types. This is because zo/lu/zoi
are not selbri valsi. Since there may be many tokens of a
given text-type, reference to a text-token should be by means
of a selbri (e.g. "le nu cusku zo coi" - 'an utterance of the
text-type _coi_').

> >> Do you mean something like:
>  >>     le nu mi cusku lu go'i li'u cu danfu lu xu do badri li'u
> >>     My saying "I am" is an answer to "Are you sad?".
>  >> Or do you mean:
>  >>     le mi se cusku cu danfu lu xu do badri li'u
> >>     What I said is an answer to "Are you sad?".
> >
> >The former. I think x2 of cusku is a text-type, not an actual
> >utterance.
>
> But I thought you agreed that the x1and x2 of {danfu} should
> be of the same type. If {le se danfu} is a text-type, then
> {le danfu} should be one as well.

I wouldn't have thought sentences (text-types) have answers;
rather, utterances, which happen in a particular universe
and context and have particular referents, do.

So better is:

  le nu mi cusku lu go'i li'u cu danfu le nu cusku lu xu do badri
     li'u
  My saying "I am" is an answer to someone's saying "Are you sad?".

 >  >> why not just:
> >> {ko cusku le sedu'u xukau do badri} = "Say whether you're sad".
> >
> >Doesn't that mean {ko cusku lu xu kau do badri li`u}?
>
> No, because of {do} and {xukau}, which inside {lu} mean
> different things than inside {du'u}. {do} inside {du'u} is the
> audience, inside {lu} it could be somebody else. The {kau}
> inside {du'u} removes the directing of {xu} to the audience.
> Inside of {lu}, {xu} is not directed to the audience in the first
> place.
>
> if {da de du'u xukau do badri}, then {da} is a proposition and {de} is
> a text-type corresponding to that proposition. The x2 of cusku asks
> for a text-type, that's why I have to use {le se du'u}.

But I'd have thought that the text-type corresponding to
the propositionoid "xu kau do badri" is {xu kau do badri}.
I agree that {da} is a proposition and {de} is a text-type
corresponding to that proposition, but what proposition and
text-type do you think da & de are?

> >I can't see it as meaning "Say whether you're sad".
>
> How would you say "Say whether you're sad"?

  Ko ???? le du`u xu kau do badri

-- I can't remember the appropriate word for "say".
Possibly something like "selvlagau" would do, but there
must be gismu for it.

> Would that work as an explication of the direct question?

Yes. Direct questions would reduce to a subcase of indirect
questions.

>
> >Just to remind myself: I take it that the point of this thread
> >is still the question:
> >  What is the appropriate technical definition of an (indirect)
> >  question, and how might an (indirect) question be phrased in
> >  Lojban in such a way as to make its logical structure explicit?
>
> Well, I think this thread started with you objecting to
> {le danfu be la'e lu xu do badri li'u} instead of
> {le danfu be lu xu do badri li'u}. In my opinion, the second
> one cannot be a {se djuno}.

I agree with this particular opinion.

--And