Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA03440 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 14 Dec 1994 17:35:36 -0500 Message-Id: <199412142235.AA03440@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4803; Wed, 14 Dec 94 17:35:24 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6117; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:04:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:05:05 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: kau X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 14 17:35:39 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu la djer cusku di'e > The word list gives us an example, " I know WHO went to the store" as an > appropriate usage for kau. "Who went to the store?" would be an > interrogative use of who, but here I see it as a personal relative > pronoun. In English maybe. In Lojban, what you know is a predication, not an object. You don't djuno the goer, you djuno the fact that he goes. It's "I know the fact:[who went to the store]", not what your analysis suggests: "I know [who]" & "[who] went to the store". Jorge