RE: "What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge"

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
> 
> 
> >   What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge.
> 
>   le nu mi citka roda poi mi citka ke'a cu jalge
>    le nu rode poi ke'a nenri le lekmi'i cu nenri le lekmi'i
>   "My eating that which I eat is a result of
>    that which is in the fridge being in the fridge".

I don't think this gets it. Yours (but not my original) would be 
true if the fridge contents' being fridge contents had, say, 
miraculously healed me of an inability to eat.

> I think this may point to a general explication of {kau},
> although in the general case the quantification
> should be outside. It doesn't seem to make a lot of
> difference in this case:
> 
>   roda poi mi citka ke'a ro de poi ke'a nenri le lekmi'i
>   zo'u le nu mi citka da cu jalge le nu de nenri le lekmi'i
> 
> 
> It seems to work for other indirect questions as well:
> 
>    la djan djuno le du'u makau klama
>    John knows who came.
> 
>    ro da poi ke'a klama zo'u la djan djuno le du'u da klama
>    For each x that came, John knows that x came.

I think you need to add

    ... and for each x that did not come, John knows that x
          did not come

--And.