From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Mar 6 23:01:39 2010 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sun, 20 Sep 1992 23:20:04 -0400 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4364; Sun, 20 Sep 92 23:18:53 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 6477; Sun, 20 Sep 92 23:18:51 EDT Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1992 23:18:53 -0400 Reply-To: "(Logical Language Group)" Sender: Lojban list From: "(Logical Language Group)" Subject: TECH: Higley on "kau" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Sun Sep 20 23:20:06 1992 X-From-Space-Address: @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: kau Since I've been out of touch for such a long time, I have no way of knowing whether this is superfluous or not. Perhaps the cmavo "kau" no longer even exists. Well, I will assume it does, because otherwise this article just wouldn't be the same! I have misplaced whatever issue of JL or whatever attachment it was that first introduced kau, so I will have to do this one from memory. (I would have liked to include some of the examples from that article.) As I understand it, the cmavo "kau" indicates that the value of that which it "modifies" is known, presumably to the speaker, but there are instances where this is apparently not the case. Thus if I say mi djuno le du'u pakau le prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi ["I know that one of the people walked on the floor, and I know which one."/"I know which one of the people walked on the floor."], I am indicating that the referent of pakau le prenu is known (to me). Thus kau means something like "referent known". And if I just say pakau le prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi apparently the meaning is the same as when djuno was the main selbri. And here's where we run into a problem. How do we know to whom the referent is known? Is kau somehow connected to the x1 sumti of djuno and any other related gismu? For if I say la djos djuno le du'u pakau le prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi, apparently it is to John (and not to me?) that the referent of pakau le prenu is known. If kau does not always indicate that it is the speaker who knows the referent, what is the standard for determining this? For la djos djuno le du'u pakau le prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi could mean "John knows that one of the people walked on the floor, and I know which one." But this seems contrary to intuition. What is the standard? Is there one? In the examples that came with the article on kau, it was used with words which might be classed as "indefinites" and "inter- rogatives", and apparently these were used interchangeably. For our purposes, an indefinite is a word like zo'e, while an interrogative is a word such as ma (which, as I'll show, is a close relative of zo'e). I think it would be useful and advantageous to split the use of kau as it is used with indefinites and interrogatives. With interrogatives, kau could be used to ask a question, while indicating that the speaker already knows the answer. Thus a teacher could ask her students, mi makau zukte makau "What am I doing and to what end?" and her students would realize that she wasn't just asking this for her (mental) health. With indefinites on the other hand (and I class such things as pa le prenu among them), kau would perform its simple duty of letting us know that the referent is known. mi zo'ekau zukte zo'ekau means something like "I'm doing something-known-to-me for some purpose-known-to-me." And thus mi djuno le du'u do du zo'ekau "I know that you are someone-known-to-me."/"I know who you are." becomes easy. Has anyone yet noted the strong relationship between kau and ki'a? The former indicates that the referent is known, and the latter prenu and paki'a le prenu, both of which mean "which one of the people" but in semantically different situations. Still, the relationship between them is clear, and perhaps worth exploring further. Also note that zo'eki'a is virtually identical -- if not completely identical -- to ma in meaning. In fact, it is probably possible to form the whole range of interrogatives by affixing ki'a to their corresponding indefinites. (Japanese, I believe, does something similar.) I am not suggesting that this be done. It would be unnecessarily verbose. But it is worth noting the relationship.1 1By the way, what is the indefinite cmavo corresponding to mo, which I believe was mentioned in that very same article on kau. I know it's a CV'V beginning with c.