Message-Id: <m0rH5WN-00007LC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 12 Dec 1994 02:49:35 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: jei
To:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1032
Lines: 19

>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.


Nora would probably disagree, and she invented kau if I recall.  She even
considers calling them "indirect questions" to be malglico, and preferred
to use null/netral values like"dakau"instead of "makau"  I would have to
dig to find out, but I think she had examples where she thought thinking of
these things as a form of 'question' was misleading as to their nature.
You on the other hand seem to feel that indirection always implies a question.
No easy way to settle it. So lets just agree to disagree until we can find
an example where each other's understandings do not work.  I'll leave the
"kau" line in the cmavo list unchanged for the nonce.

lojbab