Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:09:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710160009.TAA29734@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: tremau X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1165 Lines: 26 Lojbab: >You seem to be straining to keep it a ka, perhaps out of unwillingness to >accept that (At least in intent) ni is supposed to be the quantity and >not the indirect question (assuming I know what you mean by this - hmmm >can we solve this my making the indirect question le nikau ???) No, I'm not straining to keep anything. There are two different definitions of {le ni broda}: one is {le jaila'u broda} and the other is {le ka broda la'u makau}. We just have to choose which one is correct. Usage favours the second one, the theoretical definitions favour the first. (All those ni/ka places in the gismu list require the second, the raised modality.) >>Some broda already have a quantity place, so they may not need >>the la'u, as in {zmadu fi le ka mitre makau}. In these cases you wouldn't >>use {ni} either, I think. > >probably I would use fi le se mitre {be ce'u??? I hardly understand lambda >enough to know if this would work - and don't expect to be able to explain it >to me either %^)} No, it wouldn't work, {ce'u} always goes inside a {ka}. What you have would be a clear case of sumti raising. co'o mi'e xorxes