Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA24070 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:21:04 -0500 Received: by access1.digex.net id AA01632 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:21:01 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:21:01 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412170721.AA01632@access1.digex.net> To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: Q-kau Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sat Dec 17 02:21:06 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab >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 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. 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. 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.) lojbab