Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rhSnE-00001pC; Thu, 23 Feb 95 03:56 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4957; Thu, 23 Feb 95 03:56:54 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4955; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 03:56:53 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4937; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 02:53:01 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 20:58:09 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 793 Lines: 21 And: > I am now become dubious about the utility of Q-kau. {Makau} can > notionally be replaced by {da}, thus: > > koha djuno le duhu makau klama > koha djuno le duhu (da zohu) da klama No, it may be that she knows that noone is coming. > That is, to claim {koha djuno le duhu makau klama} is merely > to claim "She knows whether there is someone that came". It > seems the same as {koha djuno le duhu xukau da klama}. Perhaps, but {ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama} strongly suggests (without reaching the point of claiming) that she knows a useful answer to the question, just as {ma klama} pragmatically asks for a useful answer, even though in principle anything that makes the sentence true is acceptable. (What is useful and how useful it is depends, of course, on context.) Jorge