From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Aug 31 10:08:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 17:08:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 40350 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 17:05:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 17:05:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 17:05:00 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.86.200]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010831170458.PNPJ20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:04:58 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Siver threads among the mold Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:04:11 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6b.19d71b45.28c047a0@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc to xorxes: > Back to an earlier problem: You say quite confidently, having seen that the > Lojban works out badly or some other how, that "He believes what he hears" is > just a relative clause, not an indirect question. How do you tell? By trying to replace it with interrogative clauses that can't be read as relatives: *He believes what the fuck he hears. *He believes why she came. *He believes who came. *He believes what. where * = not English. > Consider > "He knows what he likes," where the ambiguity hinges on "know" -- which is > this one? or, wihtout ambiguity in the verb, "He sees what he likes." a poor choice. See also means "understand", and allows an interrogative complement in that sense. > I am still worried that this question/relative ambiguity underlies a problem > here,though it may not be the 1-2 contrast you are working on. The interrogative/relative distinction is a problem only in that it confuses some people who fail to recognize it. That is, it's a very superficial problem.