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 m0rhkmV-00001pC; Thu, 23 Feb 95 23:09 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0778; Thu, 23 Feb 95 23:09:20 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0775; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 23:09:20 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7609; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 22:05:27 +0100 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 16:06:20 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199502230140.AA29953@nfs1.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Feb 22, 95 08:34:26 pm Content-Length: 983 Lines: 23 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.