From a.rosta@xxxxx.xxxx Tue Dec 7 07:05:10 1999 X-Digest-Num: 304 Message-ID: <44114.304.1659.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 15:05:10 -0000 From: "And Rosta" Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:08:36 -0000 > > Xarmuj: > > > > It seems to work for other indirect questions as well: > > > > > > > > la djan djuno le du'u makau klama > > > > John knows who came. > > > > > > > > ro da poi ke'a klama zo'u la djan djuno le du'u da klama > > > > For each x that came, John knows that x came. > > > > > > I think you need to add > > > > > > ... and for each x that did not come, John knows that x > > > did not come > > > > But does the use of "makau" really imply either? As I understood it, "la > > djan. djuno le du'u makau klama" meant something like > > John knows the/an answer to "Who came?" > > Without implying that he knows the complete answer to that > question. And, > > of course, if both Bob and Alice came, that would be true even if John > > only knew that Bob came. > > > > co'omi'e xarmuj. > > Taking exx like "what I eat for dinner depends on what is in the > fridge", my best shot is: > > There is some x and there is some y such that it being the case > that x is an answer to "what did I eat for dinner?" depends on it > being the case that y is an answer to "what is in the fridge?" > > -- this seems to work, though a logical explication of "X is an > answer to [question]" is still required, and that is not a trivial > task. > > --And. >