Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 07:12:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712111212.HAA13610@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Q-less kau (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism) X-To: a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1189 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 11 07:12:28 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Lojbab: >> I suspect that most usages of indoirect questions are referring to known >> answers of those questions - and indeed that is why I originally glossed >> "kau" as a knowledge discursive - dakau meant "something da and I know what >> da is). > >*That's* the usage of kau I was trying to remember the other >week. Since this didn't make it into the refgram, is it now >obsolete? No. It is just not part of the prescription. Lots of stuff did not make it into the prescription, usually because it was too fuzzily understood (by John) for him to authoritatively write about it. Actually eben the above may not be correct, since if it makes the textbook it becomes part of the prescription, but not part of the formally described prescription. But it is not my intent to add to the refgram in doing the textbook. I just don't want silly arguments about "Is it canon?" if something should appear there that is not explcitly suipported by or contradicted by the refgrammar. (If it contradicts the refgrammar within the domain of the refgrammar, I thnk that the refgrammar takes prec4edence, but I am not sure what we decided on this. There is a precedence in any case. lojbab