Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qF6Ay-00001WC; Sat, 18 Jun 94 22:35 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qF6Ay-00001WC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0455; Sat, 18 Jun 94 22:35:55 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0451; Sat, 18 Jun 1994 22:35:54 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1540; Sat, 18 Jun 1994 21:34:01 +0200
Date:         Sat, 18 Jun 1994 15:35:34 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: (kau) and (du'u) and (jei)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 819
Lines: 31

la i,n cusku di'e

> You asked for it. :-)
>
>   Subject:  TECH:  Desperately seeking properties

[...]

> So we could simply use a parallel construction with {ka}.
>
>     lo'e kanba cu zmadu mi leka tu'okau da tuple de
>     Goats have more legs than me.

I liked it at first, but I think even this use conflicts with indirect
questions.

     mi djuno le du'u lo'e kanba mi zmadu le ka xokau da tuple de

Could mean:

  1- I know that goats have more legs than me.

  2- I know the number of legs which beleg us (each of me and
     the goats), I being in this property surpassed by the goats.
     (Or something like that.)

(2-) doesn't make much sense in this case, but it does have a different
meaning. Unless we force {kau} to act on the deepest abstraction, but I
don't know if that's such a good idea.

Jorge