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 m0rIKxO-00007DC; Thu, 15 Dec 94 20:31 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2579; Thu, 15 Dec 94 20:31:27 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2577; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:27:20 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3464; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 19:23:57 +0100 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 13:28:32 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: the other side of the kau X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1711 Lines: 40 la lojbab cusku di'e > Hey, the grammar paper was written by someone otrher than Nora and may not > be right. No problem, I'm just trying to learn. If the grammar paper is wrong, then let's clarify the matter. > 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. The sentence in question is "I know that it was Mary that went to the store". This says the same as {mi djuno le du'u la meiris klama le zarci}, only that in Lojban, la meiris is not emphasized. You want to use {kau} to emphasize la meiris, but this is contrary to what the grammar paper says about kau. I want to use {ba'e} to emphasize la meiris. What is wrong with that? Why is it questionable? Isn't the only significance of ba'e to emphasize something? > 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. I have no problem with using either. Using {makau} allows me to interpret {kau} as "the answer to the marked question". > 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.) The grammar papers are in general extremely careful with doubtful topics. The "any" question is not dealt with in them, and the "problem" with SE conversion is very carefully avoided by not having any examples where this could be an issue. (At least I couldn't find any.) Jorge