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

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>]

Mark:
> --- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:
[...]
> > The obvious candidate is {jei}, it already means {du'u xukau}.
> 
> I thought that {jei}!={du'u xukau} and that was one of the reasons for
> {kau} in the first place.  Correct me if I misremember.  It was
> something along the lines of {le jei broda} means either "true" or
> "false"... to the extent that truth or falsity can be substituted for
> it.  So {mi djuno le jei broda} means nothing more or less than "I
> know 'false'" or "I know 'true'", depending.  This would make it less
> than useful, yes.
> 
> I'm not sure I disagree with xod, that {du'u Xkau} is "the identity
> of...", 

This is wrong, unless "the identity of" is being used as a covert
interrogative.

> or with And, that du'u + kau isn't *really* a du'u.  

I don't claim this. In cases where I have succeeded in reformulating
Q-kau sentences to avoid Q-kau, the du'u remains. 

> I catch myself wondering, though, if this isn't something specific to
> words like {djuno} and {jinvi} and whatnot, and doesn't really need a
> general solution.

Were this true, then the problem would be less recalcitrant, because
Q-kau bridi that are sumti of djuno and kucli can be reformulated
kau-lessly. But English shows us that in fact subordinate interrogatives
aren't restricted to a definite group of selbri (cf. "They differ
in HOW tall they are", "It depends on HOW tall they are", "Let's
change HOW tall the house will be", etc.)

--And.