From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Feb 24 21:31:27 1995
Message-Id: <199502250231.AA16812@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Fri Feb 24 21:31:27 1995
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma

John:
> > I am now become dubious about the utility of Q-kau. {Makau} can
> > notionally be replaced by {da}, thus:
> > [1] koha djuno le duhu makau klama
> > [2] koha djuno le duhu (da zohu) da klama
> > 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}.
> No, Example 2 is "She knows that someone came", i.e. "She knows that there
> is someone who came"; this is not the same as "She knows who [it is that]
> came".

This is exactly my point. Jorge & I began our discussion with the
understanding that [1] means [3].

 [3]     "She knows who [it is that] came"

But it turns out that whether [1] truly means [3] depends on
exactly how the meaning of Q-kau is defined. If the rule is
"Q-kau means what English indirect interrogatives mean", then
of course [1] means [3]. However, Jorge says the rule is something
like:

  [4]   [1] means "There is something that she knows could truthfully
        replace {ma} in the question {ma klama}"

Now, {da} x-or {no da} could truthfully replace {ma} in {ma klama}.
So, if koha knows that {da} could truthfully replace {ma}, then
by rule [4], we can say [1]. In English, however, we could only
say "She knows whether anyone came", or "She knows that there is
someone who came"; we couldn't say "She knows who came".

I think Jorge's reaction to this, is that while [1] literally
(truth-conditionally) means "She knows that there is someone who came",
pragmatically it will get taken to mean [3].

My reaction is that I prefer alternative locutions to Q-kau,
anyway, so I don't care that much.

Your reaction might be that [4] is wrong, & in fact Q-kau works
more like English.

---
And