Re: [lojban] Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la ~mark cusku di'e

> Jorge's analysis, that {mi djuno le du'u makau klama} means the same
> as {mi djuno le du'u la djan. klama} but with {la djan.} "covered up"
> seems to imply to me that it means the same as {mi djuno le du'u da
> klama},

How do you get that implication? In {mi djuno le du'u da klama}
I may not know at all who goes. Also, the covered up answer could
be {noda}. Remember that makau covers up the relevant answer, not
just any true answer.

> But where else except in "knowing" and "expressing" kinds of things do
> you have to talk about the identity of the answer to a question
> without actually having the answer?

This "identity of the answer" is very confusing to me. {makau}
stands for the answer to {ma}, that's all. {du'u ... makau} is a
du'u, not an identity, whatever that is, and {ka ... makau} is
a ka.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp