From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 06 15:18:04 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Aug 2001 22:18:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 37791 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2001 22:17:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:20 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.128]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010806221718.WZDT6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:17:18 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:16:22 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEIDEIAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
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: <F43afYQEqa40IWTCa2v0000f5af@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9258

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >Excellent point: yes, there is a risk of gardenpathing. In a sense, if
> >we can get away with "du'u ... Q-kau", then we should be able to get
> >away with "du'u ... ce'u" and dispense with ka. OTOH, if we need ka
> >to forewarn us of the presence of a ce'u, then we need a new abstractor
> >to forewarn us of the presence of Q-kau.
> 
> The obvious candidate is {jei}, it already means {du'u xukau}.

This is controversial. In 90% of usage [including Refgram usage], yes; 
but by definition, no. Either the usage or the definition has to be
wrong.

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 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

 --And.