From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 06 19:15:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Aug 2001 02:15:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 88432 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2001 02:15:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2001 02:15:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2001 02:15:25 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.23]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010807021523.WNWB23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:15:23 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:14:30 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9280 Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >Anyway, I take it that you are proposing a novel definition for {jei}, > >i.e. {du'u} that contains a Q-kau, so "whether" would be {jei xu kau}. > > I am not proposing anything, all I'm saying is that should a cmavo > different from du'u be needed for indirect questions, jei would be > the best choice. I'm not at all convinced that it is needed, I have > never experienced any difficulty with du'u in that regard. Yes: I'd rather go down the abandoning ka route. > >I wouldn't rush into this overhastily. We've already established that > >ka clauses can contain Q-kau, so the current situation is: > > > > ce'u Q-kau > > ka yes yes > > ka yes no > > du'u no yes > > du'u no no > > > >Under your proposals we'd have: > > > > ce'u Q-kau > > ?? yes yes > > ka yes no > > jei no yes > > du'u no no > > {ni} is {ka sela'u makau} so we might as well put ni there. > > But now we need another one for nu+kau, as in > > le nu xokau prenu cu zvati cu spaji mi > > So no, we don't need to duplicate every abstractor for > indirect questions, thank you. go'i. But I'm a bit uncomfortable with that "nu xokau". On the one hand I see why a spaji should in general be a nu rather than a du'u, but OTOH du'u like "2+2=4" can surprise, and this particular example seems to me to involve a du'u, something like: le nu tu'o du'u xo kau prenu cu zvati cu jetnu cu spaji mi Sorry that I can't be more articulate in my rationale for this. --And.