From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Wed Jun 22 17:18:25 1994
Message-Id: <199406222118.AA21729@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Wed Jun 22 17:18:25 1994
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: (kau) and (du'u) and (jei)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

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