Message-Id: <199412161831.AA10022@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Fri, 16 Dec 1994 12:42:57 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Q-kau
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la goran tugni la djer la'e di'e

> >     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.
>
> Here I agree with you. In "I explained what that is" doesn't ASK anything.

Is this the problem with "indirect questions"? Of course they don't ASK
anything, that's what direct questions do. That doesn't mean that they
are not related. Nobody says that indirect questions are asking anything.

> I would translate it as {mi ciksi fo lodu'u ta du dakau}.

I would translate it as {mi ciksi le du'u ta du makau}, or maybe even
better: {mi ciksi le du'u ta mokau}.

> But
> "You didn't explain what this is", if I do not know what it is, I would
> render it as {do na ciksi fo lodu'u ti du makau}.

I'm not sure why you are using the x4. x4 is the explanation, not the thing
to be explained.

> Reasoning: {ma} is used when the speaker doesn't know a sumti, and it acts
> like an empty space.

Not really. The speaker may know it and want to know whether the addressee
knows it. {ma} is asking the listener to fill in the right value, it doesn't
say whether the speaker knows it or not. Normally, I agree that if the speaker
is asking it is because they don't know or are not sure.

> If we use {kau} on {ma}, {ma} loses its value as an
> interrogative, but it still says "I do not know this."

I don't think it does. You can say {mi tugni do le du'u ta skari makau} and
you would supposedly know what colour you are talking about. It neither
means that you know nor that you don't. That depends on the selbri.

> The listener is
> no longer required to answer, for the sentence is not a question, although
> it is a statement of continued ignorance of the matter. I do not find
> anything wrong with {makau} EXCEPT when it is used with known values.

{kau} has no relationship at all with "knowing". Use examples where the
speaker is not involved and this becomes more clear.

{ko'a ko'e tugni le du'u ta skari makau} = "She agrees with him on what
colour is that." The speaker may or may not know the colour in question,
it is irrelevant to the claim.

> So
> I'd say that I wouldn't say {mi pu cilre ledu'u makau finka lo dictergu'i}
> but {mi pu cilre ledu'u lakau .edison. finka lo dictergu'i} or
> {mi pu cilre ledu'u dakau finka lo dictergu'i}.

They all mean the same according to the grammar paper.

> But that's just my gut feeling...

No arguing with that. I prefer {makau} in all cases.


Jorge