Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 00:00:15 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: My use of lekau
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: <01HKNSM1F5JQ000979@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1364
Lines: 37

>From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
>Subject:      Re: Lojban prescriptivism?
>
>la lojbab cusku di'e
>> mi na djuno tu'a lekau se cmene be <<lo'u juhi lobypilno le'u>>
>
>Here's an example of {kau}.  I don't understand how you use it.
 
I actually AM using it as an indirect question, and my use of kau is
in many ways parallel with my use of ki'a in the same place.
 
Without the "kau" the above would mean:
It is false that I know (some fact about) the thing named "juhi lobypilno".
 
But this may or may not be true - indeed, since I suspect that And is
talking about "ju'i lobypli", which I do know about, I am really begging
the issue to say that.
 
If I used "ki'a":
mi na djuno tu'a leki'a se cmene be <<lo'u juhi lobypilno le'u>>
It is false that I know (about) which?? thing named "juhi lobypilno".
 
And by using kau, I mean to reverse this to the indirect question
meaning of "which":  It is false that I know (about) which thing is
named "juhi lobypilno".
 
Marking the "le" is roughly equivalent to making the whole sumti, with
focus on the specificity that "le" indicates.  Since I am focussing on
an identity issue, this might expand as follows:
 
mi na djuno tu'a lekau se cmene be <<lo'u juhi lobypilno le'u>>
mi na djuno tu'a [le se cmene be <<lo'u juhi lobypilno le'u>> ku]kau
mi na djuno tu'a [[cy]kau
mi na djuno ledu'u [[cy]kau du ma[kau]
 
lojbab