Re: [lojban-beginners] I think I can use "kau" to express Japanese "ga" and "wa"

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 loves 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 person 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 focus
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 touch 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 loves 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 any
entity I am seeing that I want you to be loved by, or any entity that loves
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 relevant
information, but sometimes, it is grammatically impossible to convey the
relevant information without putting in some more irrelevant facts, just
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.