From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jun 18 13:58:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 18 Jun 2001 20:58:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 95907 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2001 20:58:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Jun 2001 20:58:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r06.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Jun 2001 20:58:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.fb.15824778 (3928) for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:58:07 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] dai harder (was: If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was: an approa... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fb.15824778.285fc55f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8129 --part1_fb.15824778.285fc55f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/18/2001 12:13:21 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > Why not use {kau} for those indirect indicators? Compare: > > la frank na djuno le du'u xukau la meris klama ti > "Frank does not know whether Mary is coming." > > la frank facki le du'u uikau la meris klama ti > "Frank finds out that yippee! Mary is coming." > Because there is no indirect question here, only "indirect emotion" (bad phrase). The seond looks like "Frank finds out whether he is happy about Mary's coming" (sorta). That last is pretty clearly OK as is {la frank tirna tu'a le du'u la meris klama ti}. I am inclined to think that the one without {tu'a} works as well, but am also willing to leave that up to usage or authoritative decree. Is {ko'a cusku le du'u ...} legit? probably not, and so {tirna le du'u} wouldn't be either. Ah well, {tu'a} is cheap. --part1_fb.15824778.285fc55f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/18/2001 12:13:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

Why not use {kau} for those indirect indicators? Compare:

la frank na djuno le du'u xukau la meris klama ti
"Frank does not know whether Mary is coming."

la frank facki le du'u uikau la meris klama ti
"Frank finds out that yippee! Mary is coming."

Because there is no indirect question here, only "indirect emotion" (bad
phrase). The seond looks like "Frank finds out whether he is happy about
Mary's coming" (sorta).

<As for {tirna}, can we really use it in both senses:

la frank tirna le nu la meris klama ti
"Frank hears Mary coming."

?la frank tirna le du'u la meris klama ti
"Frank hears (is told) that Mary is coming."

Maybe {la frank tirna lu la meris klama ti li'u}, which would
mean we can say {la frank tirna le sedu'u la meris klama ti}.>

That last is pretty clearly OK as is {la frank tirna tu'a le du'u la meris
klama ti}. I am inclined to think that the one without {tu'a} works as well,
but am also willing to leave that up to usage or authoritative decree. Is
{ko'a cusku le du'u ...} legit? probably not, and so {tirna le du'u}
wouldn't be either. Ah well, {tu'a} is cheap.
--part1_fb.15824778.285fc55f_boundary--