Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 00:37:53 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: the other side of the kau
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HKNTMAYRNM0009ZV@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 903
Lines: 19

>According to the grammar paper, using {makau} or {la meiris kau} is
>equivalent, only that the latter suggests what is the answer to the indirect
>question, but doesn't really assert it.
 
Hey, the grammar paper was written by someone otrher than Nora and may not
be right.  Whether it asserts or not when a value is supplied can be
argued.  I do not like making any assumptions about the significance of
ba'e to semantics, so that option is at least as questionable.
 
Back when we proposed kau, I think the norm was to use dakau rather than makau,
another case where intermediate conventions that have not been much used seem
to have become 'rules' without much discussion.
 
Note that with a couple of exceptions, I have not reviewed any of Cowan's
grammar papers.  They are NOT baselined or cast in concrete.  (And a good
thing too, given the turmoil the "any" question has been causing.)
 
lojbab