Inrect questions are a p= roblem for English (and familiar language) speakers because (since at least= I-E days) one set of pronouns get used in a variety of ways. S= o "He asked who the murderer was" involves a clear indirect question, a tra= nsform from "He asked, 'Who is the murderer?'", but "He knows who the murde= rer is" seems only remotely related to a question, perhaps as "He know the = correct answer to the question 'Who is the murderer?'". But then *"He= believes who the murder is" (OK in Lojban, of course: ko'a krinu lo du'u m= akau morgau) could only mean "He believes some answer to the question "Who = is the murderer?'" ("He believes he knows ..."). And when we get to something like "They differ in what they wear", the connection to question= s has virtually disappeared ('They give different answers to the question 'What do you wear?'"?!) What they wear is in Lojban just lo= se dasni (or, in the example, maybe te), similar to "what he said" in "He = said who the murder was, but I didn't hear what he said". In this las= t case, even the first is pretty clearly not about a question but rather an= assertion with the crucial part left out ("He said '... is the murderer'")= All of this got shifted to Lojban (culturally neutral, ma derriere) = as an indirect question, rather than the several things it might reasonably= be -- relatives of {ce'u} with matter of focus thrown in mainly.&nbs= p; All that being said, {makau} seems to work in place, despite the incongr= uities in the semantics. Of course, it would be somewhat easier if th= e use of {ce'u} were not limited to abstraction, so that we could say {lo s= e dasni be ce'u} without throwing in the irrelevant property marker and fic= tional indirect question. On the other hand, the separation is sometimes needed, since (in English) "He knows who the murderer is" is qui= te different from "He know the murderer" (something someone always says in = closed suspect list mysteries).

On a different topic slightly= , the raising of sumti in many cognitive and phatic predicates is a terribl= e mistake, since it opens violations of opacity right and left, since thing= s mentioned in propositions or properties or what have you need not be in t= he world in which the propositions, etc. are referred to, but sumti raising= puts them there: from "John mistakenly believes there are unicorns" one ge= ts in two steps to "There are some things that John mistakenly believes the= re to be".

Fro= m: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013= 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: = [lojban] {makau} {mokau}

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> {djuno2} is= actually a ka, but we pretend that it isn't because the gimste
> mad= e its definition clumsy to use that way. Indeed, the djuno2 is a property> of the djuno3.

We could say that "djuno" is a sumti raising p= redicate, in the
linguistic sense of "raising"
http://en.wikipedia.or= g/wiki/Raising_(linguistics) since its x3 is the
semantic argument of an= embedded predicate. The same can be said of
almost all predicates that = take a ka-argument. (There are a couple of
oddball predicates that the g= i'uste says should take ka but are not in
this category.)

mu'o mi= 'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribe= d to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group an= d stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send emai= l to lojban@googlegroups.com= .
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.=
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/o= pt_out.