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 m0rGtGd-00007DC; Sun, 11 Dec 94 20:45 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7930; Sun, 11 Dec 94 20:45:21 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7927; Sun, 11 Dec 1994 20:45:20 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6134; Sun, 11 Dec 1994 19:41:59 +0100 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 13:46:53 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: jei To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1895 Lines: 45 la lojbab cusku di'e > I guess I could also make > it clear with lekau jei broda , which to me seems more obvious than ledu'u > xukau - which seems very malglico for some reason to me (or malrarna) when > jei is explicitly available. xu just too strongly asks a question to me, > even if metalinguistically marked. {le du'u xukau} malglico? I would have said the opposite. In English, "whether" is the only irregular indirect question, in that its form is different from the direct one, while all the others use the same word for direct and indirect questions. In Lojban, I would expect all indirect questions to be treated in the same manner, why should "whether" be different? Because it is different in English? It is not a problem that "xu" asks a question. "kau" means "the answer to this question". That's why I much prefer to use question words with "kau" rather than other words, that are equally permitted. For example mi djuno le du'u makau klama I know who is coming. I know what is the answer to the question "who is coming?". mi smadi le du'u do ponse xokau plise I guess how many apples you have. I guess what is the answer to the question "how many apples do you have?". And I don't see why "xu" should be any different: mi do tugni le du'u xukau la lojban xamgu bangu I agree with you on whether Lojban is a good language. I agree with you on what is the answer to the question "is Lojban a good language?". I really don't see what is malglico about {le du'u xukau}, it seems to me to be very Lojbanic, making indirect questions more regular in Lojban than they are in English. If anything, I'd say using {jei} for "whether" is malglico, because it tends to make Lojban have the same irregularity that English has in having a special word for the yes/no indirect question. Jorge