However, {kau} can be placed anywhere. Is it somethin= g that we want?

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:39:43 PM UTC+4, tsani = wrote:

On 14 October 2012 07:31= , gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wr= ote:

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:47:42 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
On 13 October 2012 01:04, gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the parallel thread I completely forgot to explain why I thought {ka= u} could be used for focus of any sentence.

Look at the = following example:
[.i paunai ma zekri prenu .i mi djuno lo du'u = makau zekri prenu .i mi djuno lo du'u la .djan. kau zekri prenu] = .i la .djan. kau zekri prenu

Yeah, I don't know why you'= d think the kau gets preserved. {makau} acts as one single unit, and gets r= eplaced entirely when you want to insert the "answer" to the indirect quest= ion.

This would make sense if {la d= jan. kau} were absent in the CLL.
{kau} is glossed as "indi= rect question" and I can't see any questions in {la djan. kau}.

The CLL being wr= ong is new? :P

Now imagine that we omit the sentences in br= ackets and let the context decide what's going on here.

Even then it's pretty simple to reconstruct first three sentences if o= nly the last one is given.
But it just means that every time you = use {kau} without any questions (even indirect questions), even then it doe= sn't mean that those questions are absent.

They still EXIST. They are just omitted by the speaker = but can be easily resurrected from the sentences that are actually said.
Really it would be very verbous to say
.i paunai= ma zekri prenu .i mi djuno lo du'u makau zekri prenu .i mi djuno lo d= u'u la .djan. kau zekri prenu.....................

It's just not worth it.

Or we could just say {la djan zekri prenu}. In = a real conversation, the difference between the two sentences, with and wit= hout kau, is purely textual, AFAICT. Using {kau} conveys no extra meaning, = and therefore leads me to believe that it's pointless to use.

<= div>However, I doubt a bit that it is {kau}, not any other UI-cmavo that ca= n serve this purpose.

Do we have a generalised UI-cmavo like we have {su'u} as a generalised= NU-cmavo?
{ge'e} speaks about emotions so it won't work.

Guys, it's ba'e. Can we= please stop trying to use kau for things other than indirect questions? :)=

I'm not sure if emphasis and t= opic-comment structure are always identical.

No, of course they aren't the same, and= I didn't say they were. {zo'u} is for topic-comment structure, and {ba'e} = is for emphasis. The CLL is right on that one.

If you want to say "It's John, and not someone else, that is the crimi= nal" then why are you all pining for {la djan kau co'e} rather than {ba'e l= a djan co'e} ?

Next, {paunai} is defined as a rhetorical question. I don't= know exactly what "rhetorical" means. For me this glossword includes some = emotions. But if {paunai} is just the opposite of {pau} and {pau} is just a= question marker then for me {paunai=3Dkau}.

A rhetorical question is a = sentence that appears to be a question, but isn't actually asking anything.= "Who could *do* such a thing!?" could be a rhetorical question. {kau} is n= ot for "questions that aren't questions"; {kau} is for *indirect questions*= . Those are both *different* things, and therefore have *different* cmavo, = albeit both UI.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.= google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/76RjAIGKOLIJ.

=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.co= m.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/<= wbr>group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.