From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Apr 24 07:53:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 24 Apr 2001 14:53:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 63866 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2001 14:53:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Apr 2001 14:53:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 14:53:28 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:35:26 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:55:11 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:54:41 +0100 To: lojban Subject: RE: [lojban] RE:not only Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6876 Jorge: #la and cusku di'e # #>Rob Speer (whose lojbanization reminds me of Robespierre): #> > My impression is that a bridi with 'kau' following a question word mea= ns #> > "the answer to (that bridi without 'kau')". Not that you actually put = the #> > answer in its place, but rather you replace it with the idea of the=20 #> >answer. # # This is certainly correct. It's just difficult to formalize # it in terms of logic. -- which is the important issue. #> > mi na djuno lenu mi ponse xokau rupnu #> > I don't know (I have how-much-kau money) #> > I don't know the answer to "how much money do I have?" #> #>The problem is this this is still a covert interrogative. It means #>"I don't know what the answer to 'how much money do I have' is." # # Right, but the idea is correct. If you substitute the right # answer for the indirect question, you do get the correct meaning. # # >Observe how if I have 20 pounds, the sentence does not mean # >"I don't know 20 pounds". # # But "20 pounds" is not the complete answer to the question. # The complete answer is "I have 20 pounds", and the sentence # does indeed mean "I don't know that I have 20 pounds", though # of course I couldn't put it that way if I didn't know, # so that turn of phrase ("I don't know that") has aquired a # different idiomatic meaning in English, but that's beside # the point. "John doesn't know how much money do I have" # does mean "John doesn't know that I have 20 pounds" if that is # the answer. I concede my error. It remains the case, though, that the official analysis of indirect questions, as formulated by Rob, does not avoid indirect questions in its periphrasis, and it is my hunch that locically, direct interrogative= s make use of the basic logical machinery of indirect interrogatives, rather than vice versa. --And.