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 m0rhNnV-00001pC; Wed, 22 Feb 95 22:36 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9797; Wed, 22 Feb 95 22:36:43 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9794; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 22:36:39 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5657; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 21:32:45 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 20:34:26 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 21 Feb 95 19:34:15 EST.) Content-Length: 852 Lines: 24 Jorge: > > I'd thought they were supposed to follow the English model. It > > doesn't matter whether they do, so long as we can express both > > da zohu koha djuno le duhu da klama > > da zohu koha djuno le duhu da du lohi klama > The one with {makau} is equivalent to neither of them. It allows for > her knowing that noone will come, and also for just knowing that someone > will come. Right. One could find a way to do that using my method, but I shan't bother for the time being. 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 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}. --- And