Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:34:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712110234.VAA01971@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: On logji lojbo discussions X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2618 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 10 21:34:33 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Lojbab: >>The answer can also be ja'a/na. That's how Lojban questions are usually >>explained: they ask for a replacement word that makes the utterance true. > >1. Reference for bare ja'a/na as an answer to xu? Just plain common sense. What else could they mean? > (A bare NA is grammatical, >but I don't recall it being discussed wth respect to "xu"). Well, we're discussing it now... :) Don't you agree it makes eminent sense? >2. Neother ja'a/na nor go'i/nago'i is a replacement for "xu" since xu is >a discursive having attitudinal grammar. You cannot replace it by the >answer and have the resault be grammatical. Not in general, I agree. But you can replace it when xu is at the start of the bridi, as in standard yes/no questions. >Thus xu is obviously an exception to the replacement rule. Well, maybe not: better replacements might be {je'u}/{je'unai}. >>Tell me whether John goes to the market. >>He does. (He goes to the market.) >>He doesn't. (He doesn't go to the market. >> >>Tell me whether "John goes to the market" is true. >>It is. ("John goes to the market" is true.) >>It isn't. ("John goes to the market" is not true.) > >I see that they are different. I do not clearly see how it realtes to >the Lojban. Can you translate each of these into Lojban-as-you-see-it >so I can see how the answers seem to be responsive/non-responsive to the >indirect question? Certainly: i ko cusku le sedu'u xukau la djan klama le zarci - i la djan klama le zarci - i je'u la djan klama le zarci - i la djan na klama le zarci - i je'unai la djan klama le zarci i ko cusku le sedu'u makau jei la djan klama le zarci - i li pa jei la djan klama le zarci - i li no jei la djan klama le zarci > (In my opinuion, phrasing a direct question, which the >above are, as an indirect question, isn't really kosher, but I understamd that >it is done in English. Can it legitimately be done in Lojban? Or does the >kau marking on the xu make the question unaskable? Yes, it can be done legitimately. Of course, it would be more straightforward to simply use the direct question: i xu la djan klama le zarci - i je'u la djan klama le zarci i ma jei la djan klama le zarci - i li pa jei la djan klama le zarci >It is not any yes or no question - it is a pronoun representing the answer >to either a yes/no or a connective question. Thus it works like "who" >and "what" grammatically, but in English at least, we cannot ask the >direct question with "wehether" "*Whether you go to the store?" "Whether" is a pronoun??? In any case, who said anything about using it for direct questions? co'o mi'e xorxes