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 m0qGZRc-00001dC; Thu, 23 Jun 94 00:02 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0843; Thu, 23 Jun 94 00:02:56 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0841; Thu, 23 Jun 1994 00:02:53 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8214; Wed, 22 Jun 1994 23:00:54 +0200 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 17:05:01 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: (kau) and (du'u) and (jei) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1007 Lines: 29 la i,n di'e cusku > We've always got this problem with nested constructs. > > mi cusku le se du'u do djuno le du'u dakau bebna > > 1) I say that you know who is foolish > 2) I say who you know is foolish > > and there's a workaround using subscripts - I think the above is (1) > and (2) is > > mi cusku le se du'u do djuno le du'u dakau xipa bebna > > but I need to bring myself up-to-date with the latest version > of the abstraction paper. I don't remember any mention of subindices in the paper, but that sounds reasonable. (Although I would prefer maybe something like {dakaukau} instead of using numbers.) In any case, whatever method is used to disambiguate here can also be used when using {ka}. I prefer your interpretation of {kau} with {ka} because it seems closer in meaning to the indirect questions. Also it's more general. The other interpretation is only useful with {zmadu} and {mleca}, but not with any other selbri, where the usual anaphor(as/i?) are sufficient. Jorge