| So, I am starting from scratch, mainly to keep the rust from getting too
thick and because Nick and And have more important tasks. 1) I don't know how deep the identity of interrogative and relative pronouns goes. In I-E it seems present from the get-go, but I don't know how much farther back it goes. From what little I know about languages beyond the wildest grasp of Nostratists, the question sems not even to make sense there -- relatives and questions seem to be handled by totally different devices, neither really pronouns. Anyhow, in English they are often hard to distinguish (indeed, rarely unquestionably so), so, before we try to find an indirect question form for some _expression_, we might be well advised to try a relative clause one instead. It works amazingly often. And, in Lojban, it has the advantage of giving something more obviously grammatical than some of the offerings involving {makau}. 2) The standard theory (not the only one nor necessarily the most satisfactory in some particular respects, but the one all others start off from) is that questions are sets of answers, claims, of some sort. The various theories start to diverge on what sort of answers get in, but for the most part the set cannot be limited to the correct answers (else the puzzle about wondering and doubting -- though these can be dealt with). It is also standard that the referent of a thing in indirect context is the its direct sense. Thus, the referent of an indirect question is either the sense of a set of claims, a property of claims, then, or a set of senses of claims, a set of propositions, then. Lojban seems to go for the latter, though some moves tend to suggest the former as well (and the relation between the two is so unclear as to leave the question of a middle ground open). 3) If an indirect question refers to a set of propositions, then the standard way of talking about it, {le du'u}, is probably wrong in most cases, for the speaker often does not know which proposition the knower, for example, knows and, since this is oblique context, the various possibilities are not reducible to a single archetype. John may be the tallest boy in the class and the Suzy know that the tallest boy in the class went to the store but that does not mean that, when she knows who went to the store, she knows that John did -- for she may be unaware or indifferent to the fact that John is the tallest boy. So, it is safer to go with {lo du'u} "some apparopriate answer" (correct in the case of {djuno}, say). |