Message-Id: <199502251847.AA16026@nfs1.digex.net>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Date: Sat Feb 25 13:47:54 1995
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
X-From-Space-Date: Sat Feb 25 13:47:54 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

And responds to John:
> [1]     koha djuno le duhu makau klama
> [3]     "She knows who [it is that] came"
>
> 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}"

Right.

> 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",

No, I don't agree that that is what [1] literally means. That does not
allow for her knowing that noone comes, while [1] does. As you say above,
the literal meaning would be [4].

> pragmatically it will get taken to mean [3].

Right. Just as pragmatically you don't expect the true answer
{da onai noda} to the question {ma klama}.

Jorge