[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] {kau} vs. {ba'e}



On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1 October 2012 03:05, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:


On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:32:24 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
Simply because {la djan kau} is arguably never correct, {kau} can never "replace" {ba'e}. {kau} has a particular use, namely to mark indirect *questions*. {kau} on anything but a question is weird, at best, and complete nonsense, at worst.

{ba'e} on the other hand marks emphasis. Emphasis and indirect questions are two separate ideas. 

{.i mi djuno lo du'u xukau la djan ba'e broda} "I know whether John brodas (and not whether he does/is some other selbri)"
{.i mi djuno lo du'u ba'e xu kau la djan ba'e broda} "I know *whether* John brodas (and not if it pertains to some other indirect question)"

The thing about {makau} is that it's somewhat referentless, like {da}, and it's best to think about {[question]-kau} constructs as being single items of the [question]'s selma'o.

As for "replacing kau with ba'e", I must say that replacing *incorrect* usage of {kau}, such as {la djan kau}, with {ba'e}, in the form of {ba'e la djan} is a very excellent solution.

So is it something that needs to be fixed in this chapter of the CLL? 

In my very honest opinion, yes.

{kau} on a non-question word (in a context where an indirect question would make sense) has a simple and obvious meaning: it's the answer to the indirect question. It's not just any old form of emphasis. No need to change anything about the language but your own (mis)understanding.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.