From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Nov 29 12:32:52 1999
X-Digest-Num: 297
Message-ID: <44114.297.1613.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:32:52 -0000
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
Subject: RE: "What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge"
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1613

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
> 
> la xarmuj cusku di'e
> 
> >As I understood it, "la
> >djan. djuno le du'u makau klama" meant something like
> >	John knows the/an answer to "Who came?"
> >Without implying that he knows the complete answer to that question.
> 
> I think it has to be "the" answer, the relevant one, not just
> any answer, which would be too vague. If John knows that
> someone came, but not who it was, then he does know an
> answer to "who came?", namely "someone did", but not
> the relevant answer.

I think you're each half-right: it has to be *a* relevant answer. So 
"John" would be an adequate answer even if he was not the only one to
have come.

--And.