Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 23:53:33 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412140453.AA10548@access1.digex.net>
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Subject: the other side of the kau
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net
Status: RO

I asked Nora about her 'other' non-question use of "kau", and now recall
where the "knowledge" definition of kau came from.  Most of our usages
of "kau" have indeed been 'questions'.  But her original example
paralleled "I know *who* went to the store" (mi djuno le du'u makau
klama le zarci) with "I know *that it was Mary that* went to the store"
(mi djuno ledu'u la meiris. kau klama le zarci).  As far as Nora knows,
we have developed no new way to stress what piece of a subordinate
predication abstraction is the 'known' information, while supplying that
information.  The "makau" style indirect 'questions' to her are really
the same statement, but they falsely resemble questions in English (and
maybe in other European languages) when what is really being done in "I
know *who* went to the store" is ellipsis:  (mi djuno ledu'u zo'ekau
klama le zarci).  There is no 'question' and it is unloglandic to think
of it as a question.

I may be reading more into her idea than she has ever actually said, but
I think she would favor the Lojbanic way to be to supply the information
rather than to make it a dangling 'question', which has a tantalizing
hint of 'I know something you don't and I'm not going to tell you what
it is'.

Thus "jei" becomes more justified - you say "mi djuno ledu'u li pakau
jei broda" vs.  "mi djuno ledu'u xukau broda", taking 2 extra syllables
but those extra syllables provide the key information.  (You could also 
say "mi djuno ledu'u ja'akau broda").

lojbab