Date:  Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:23:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712040023.TAA23551@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: kau
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 844
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec  3 19:23:29 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Lee:
>> ni'o co'i le cerni cu preti fofo'a feleli'i fo'a capu sipna ge'ekau
>> "In the morning they asked her how she had slept."
>
>> I would use {peikau} rather than {ge'ekau}, but in any
>> case it is definitely an indirect question.
>
>In either case, wouldn't that be asking how she /felt/ about
>her sleeping, not the quality of her sleep itself?  Wouldn't
>the latter be better as {...capu mokau sipna}?

I think you're right. I'm not even sure that it makes sense
as it stands because usually indirect questions go within
{du'u}, and besides embedding attitudinals in  sub-clauses
is tricky. Another possibility: {...pu sipna seri'i makau}.

[It seems that {ca} is redundant there. In Old Lojban,
{capu sipna} meant "has slept", while {pu sipna} meant
just "slept", but in Modern Lojban there is no such distinction.]

co'o mi'e xorxes