Message-Id: <199412172029.AA23382@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Sat, 17 Dec 1994 15:30:53 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 lojbab cusku di'e

> I guess this is the crux.  To me, in Lojban, the question words are so
> strongly metalinguistically asking a question, that I have trouble thinking of
> a mere discursive changing that.

The alternative is to use a potpourri of different words for each type of
indirect question. I agree with the grammar paper that it is irrelevant
what you use with kau, all that matters is to which selmaho the word belongs.

The big advantage of question words (besides allowing you to think of {kau}
as "the answer to this question") is that they are in every selmaho where
indirect questions are required, so that they are made quite regular.

> ONLY if I think of "makau" as a single
> undivided unit, can I overcome that instinct, and that goes against the grain
> of Lojban which says that they are separate words.

Other compounds of words in Lojban are also better thought of as single
words, notably those involving "nai".

In any case, whatever you use with "kau", you'll have to think of the
compound as a single word.

> In English, where the
> "question words" are also used in indirect questions and as relative pronouns,
> and maybe a few other ways, the strong semantics usually doesn;t come to the
> fore  (though I am prone these days to making puns based on interpreting
> them in non-standard ways, per the classic "Who's on First" comedy (if
> unfamilar with this Jorge, it is worth tracking down as classic American
> linguistic humor.)

Are you kidding, I grew up watching Abott(sp?) and Costello movies (dubbed
in Spanish of course). I guess something was lost for an audience that
knew almost nothing of baseball, though.

Jorge