Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:19:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710230219.VAA04467@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: Indirect questions X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199710212249.QAA07072@indra.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1099 Lines: 21 On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > >and that the alternative would in most cases be "better" (at > >least by my own standards) than the indirect question. > > In most cases the alternative would be more cumbersome. "Better" > in the sense that it would be logically more transparent, but "worse" > in the sense that it would be almost unmanageable in ordinary > conversation (you would need to use quantifiers and the prenex). It seems to be commonly assumed that quantifiers and prenexes will only be used when people are trying to be explicit and mathematical about something. I'm not sure I see why. It's pretty concise compared to prenexes that English-speaking logicians use. We haven't used them that much in casual Lojban chitchat, but maybe that's just malrarna bias. I can't address this particular question because I don't see how in general an indirect question can be stated another way. It's kind of a black box to me. What's a non i.q. way of saying {ko'a na djuno ledu'u xukau mi badri} (She doesn't know whether or not I am sad). Chris