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

["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 you're right. What I would need is: "My eating that
which I eat, and not something else, is a result of
that which is in the fridge, and not something else, being
in the fridge".

Would that do it?

> > 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

Right, and I think I also need to add: "... and if nobody came,
then John knows that nobody came."

And I need to add something like that in the prenex version
of what I have for dinner, too, to cover the cases where
I had nothing for dinner or where there is nothing in the
fridge.

Indirect questions are complicated beasts.

co'o mi'e xorxes