From araizen@newmail.net Sat Aug 04 19:11:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 02:11:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 42180 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 02:11:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 02:11:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n16.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.1.34) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 02:11:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.34] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2001 02:11:42 -0000 Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 02:11:37 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Message-ID: <9kia0p+5a61@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 556 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.181.246 From: "Adam Raizen" [explanation of makau snipped] That explanation is great in almost every case, but I wonder :-) about a case like: 1) la meris kucli le du'u makau klama le zarci as opposed to 2) la meris kucli le du'u la djan klama le zarci It seems me that in 1), Mary is wondering about the identity of who goes, whereas in 2), Mary is wondering about the fact that John goes. The makau could be replaced by la djan in 1), and it would change the meaning. Or maybe that's not what 1) means, but if it isn't, how do you say it? mu'o mi'e adam