Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 18:23:27 -0800
From: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Q-kau
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Reply-to: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Message-id: <01HKNQLPYS3A0006IS@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2595
Lines: 67

And quoted djer:
 
>> appropriate usage for kau. "Who went to the store?" would be an
>> interrogative use of who, but here I see it as a personal relative
>> pronoun.
 
And said:
>This may not be relevant, but I wouldn't call it a relative pronoun;
>I would call it an interrogative pronoun. In "*I* know what YOU know"
>"what" is a relative pronoun, while in "I KNOW what you KNOW" "what"
>is an interrogative pronoun. I can muster arguments to support this,
>but I won't unless you judge it germane.
>
djer says:
I would have to argue with this. I KNOW what you KNOW goes to I know
that which you know; to me.
    I found this example in ESSENTIAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR.
    "I admire a man * who has convictions.*
    We can start * whenever you're ready.*
    In analyzing such sentences it is customary to say that *who has
    convictions* and *whenever you're ready* are subordinate clauses; and
    that *I admire a man* and We can start* are main clauses. "
    There is an alternative interpretation where the whole sentence is
    the main clause."
    But no ? is used.
 
    Another source:  Harper's English Grammar
  "  Who, as both interrogative and relative, refers to persons only.
    Note how the use of the relative (who) serves the double purpose of
    connective and relating agent.. Thus you say *We met a man who
    directed us*."
 
 
    I take this to mean that they are not questions. However things may
    change as we cross the Atlantic. You seem to see implicit or
    explicit questions embedded in these constructions that I am not
    aware of.  I cannot find any unquoted who clauses which are implied
    questions.
 
 
>> As such it could be written with the 'universal' relative
>> pronoun, "such that", giving "I know something (x) such that it went
>> to the store"  or mi djuno da zo'u da pa klama lo zarci.
And asked:
>[Is that really grammatical Lojban?]
djer replies:
        NO, and it definitely gives the parser indigestion. Apparently
        the best that can be done to get "such that" is use a
        conjunction as I did in the predicate calculus. You were
        forewarned I was in speculative mode.
 
        .i mi sanji da ije da klama le zarci.
 
 
And:
>"I know x such that x went to the store" is not a very good rendering of
>the meaning. Better is "I know the identity of the goers to the store".
djer:
        I agree with this and even did try a version in pc but I think
        that "know" is close. As I said in another post, the use of
        djuno with all its attendant abstractions is quite confusing.
 
bye, djer.
 
 
djer