Message-Id: <199502230140.AA29953@nfs1.digex.net>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed Feb 22 20:40:28 1995
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 22 20:40:28 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

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