Date:  Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:24:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711220024.TAA04326@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: Indirect questions
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1177
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 21 19:24:55 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

cu'u la lojbab

>le skami certu cu danfu lenu le skamu cu broda
>
>If the problem is an event, then the solution can be a thing or an event or
>a person.  There may be an embedded sumti-raising here, but I'll admit that
>I am not sure that you need a specific event to necessarily specify a
>solution to a problem that is somewhat non-specific.

If  specificity is the problem and broda is non-specific, why not then:
{le nu le skami certu cu brode cu danfu le nu le skami cu broda}?

But I don't think {broda} is for that. I would prefer: {le nu le skami certu
cu co'e cu danfu le nu le skami cu co'e}

>lenu lemi bersa cu vimcybevri le festi cu danfu lu ma bazi vimcu le festi
li'u
>My son removing the garbage is an answer to "Who is going to (right now)
>remove the garbage?"

I prefer le danfu and le se danfu at least to be of the same argument type.

>I can imagine mi terspuda le fonxa easily

How can you be a reply to a telephone? Who gives you as a reply to
the telephone? What does that mean?

 >On has to be a bit metaphorical to say that a person is an answer to a
problem
>that is only described as "the phone".

Indeed. It sounds crazy to me.

co'o mi'e xorxes