From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199502232106.AA13078@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 16:06:20 -0500 (EST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 23 16:06:28 1995 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la .and. cusku di'e > 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". When I queried Linguist List a year or so ago on the matter, it turned out that the minority of languages that do not use embedded question forms (possibly with inversion, like English) for indirect questions simply blur the distinction, using Example 1-like forms to express both meanings, but Lojban mustn't. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.