Message-Id: <m0qEg35-00001WC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 17 Jun 1994 11:42:58 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)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1032
Lines: 31

la i,n cusku di'e

> No, the property disambiguator is just plain {da}.

That was my understanding a while back, but the last version
of John's paper on abstractions says otherwise.

> (Is it time to revisit my "Desperately seeking properties"
> rant from way back at the end of August?  John Cowan threatened
> to respond to the "properties" half, but to the best of my
> knowledge never did.)

Yes, please do! I think at the time I was in anti-nationality-gismu
mode, and probably wasn't reading all that was posted.


> >         mi djuno le du'u xukau la djan nelci lei plise
>
> > (and the {xu} could even be dropped)...
>
> I'm not sure about dropping the {xu}.  I did once venture
> {nakau} for this (I think it was a private message to Colin).

Yes, it's safer to leave it there. I hadn't thought of {nakau},
but it should work. I still prefer to use only question words
for indirect questions, because it's the most regular form.
Also it makes sense, since {kau} means something like "the answer
to this question".


Jorge