It's just not worth it.

Howev= er, I doubt a bit that it is {kau}, not any other UI-cmavo that can serve t= his purpose.

Do we have a generalised UI-cmavo like we have {su'u= } as a generalised NU-cmavo?

{ge'e} speaks about emotions s= o it won't work.

Next, {paunai} is defined as a rh= etorical question. I don't know exactly what "rhetorical" means. For me thi= s glossword includes some emotions. But if {paunai} is just the opposite of= {pau} and {pau} is just a question marker then for me {paunai=3Dkau}.

On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:07:13 PM UTC+4, .asiz. = wrote:

On 12 October 2012 02:10= , .iocikun.juj. <yoshiku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I want to use {kau} outside {du'u}.
> It's good that I can say following.
>
> la djan. kau klama
> (You know that someone goes. I inform you that it's John who goes)
>

If {kau} is to be accepted as a focus marker inside {du'u}, it is only = logical
that it is equally accepted in main bridi, yes.

> And I can do ordering more strictly.
>
> {mi viska da gi'e da prami ko} is "Please show me the person who l= oves you"
> or "Please be loved by the person who I see".
> And {mi viska kau da gi'e da prami ko} is "Please show me the pers= on who
> loves you".
> [I don't see X and X loves you, I see X and X loves you ... ] ->= ; [I see X
> and X loves you]
> And {mi viska da gi'e da prami kau ko} is "Please be loved by the = person who
> I see".
> [I see X and X don't loves you, I see X and X loves you ...] ->= [I see X and
> X loves you]
>

I think I understand where you are trying to get here, but I guess focu= s
is not the appropriate solution.

Focus is useful in imperatives just as in an other construction:
{ko ba'e jgari ta} / {ko jgari kau ta} -> "HOLD that" (Don't only to= uch it)
{ko jgari ba'e ta} / ko jgari ta kau} -> "Hold THAT" (Not something = else)

I guess your sentence
> {mi viska da gi'e da prami ko} is "Please show me the person who l= oves you"
may be corrected as
{mi viska da .ije da prami ko}
rewritten as
{mi viska da poi [ke'a] prami ko}
or
{ko se prami da poi mi viska [ke'a]}

You correctly understand that, as it is, this request doesn't specify a= ny
entity I am seeing that I want you to be loved by, or any entity that l= oves
you that I want you to show me. In fact, there may be neither, and you
may need to cure my blindness as well as gain the love of someone to
show me.

However, this is not a question of lack of focus, it is just a lack of
description:
{ko se prami lo se viska be mi}
"Be loved by the one I see."
vs.
{ko vi'argau mi lo prami be do}
"Show me the lover of yours"

> And the idea is essential to languages, isn't it?
>

I am no typologist, but I don't know of any language without focus.

On a theoretical level, we expect other's expressions to convey relevan= t
information, but sometimes, it is grammatically impossible to convey th= e
relevant information without putting in some more irrelevant facts, jus= t
to build a grammatical phrase. Focus is then the way we can single out
the relevant among the by-products.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/l= ojban-beginners/-/pT2sVDvhDCUJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_3619_5132303.1350115442680--