From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 20 09:12:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 20 Sep 2001 16:12:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 92524 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2001 16:12:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2001 16:12:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2001 16:12:36 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.16d.1298077 (4222) for ; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16d.1298077.28db6f6c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:12:28 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Dumb answers to good questions To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_16d.1298077.28db6f6c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_16d.1298077.28db6f6c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2001 9:42:47 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > I'd momentarily forgotten in my previous message that kau is > supposed to be a focus marker. It's true that wh elements are > focused: > > Who hit Bill? > for x such that x hit Bill, x = what? > > but at the same time, IF qkau is valid lojban for indirect questions then > kau cannot be a mere focus marker and must instead be the magic thingy > that makes direct q-words indirect. Things'd probably be > semantically/logically > neater if kau were the focus marker and qkau for indirect questions were > invalid, > The cmavo list says that {kau} is focus in INDIRECT questions, so it does not have a defined function in DIRECT questions (which are, presumably, syntactically distinct). Indeed, the Refgram has {kau} as "indirect question marker." This seems to preclude its use in DIRECT questions altogether. But the Refgram also uses it for a peculiar kind of emphasis -- the question and the answer, which would work indirectly, I suppose. But is too atrocious a usage to carry over to direct questions as well. Surely, fronting with {zo'u} and emphasis with {ba'e} provide enough material to take care of the problem. (The corresponding things do in English, apparently.) --part1_16d.1298077.28db6f6c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/20/2001 9:42:47 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


I'd momentarily forgotten in my previous message that kau is
supposed to be a focus marker. It's true that wh elements are
focused:

Who hit Bill?
for x such that x hit Bill, x = what?

but at the same time, IF qkau is valid lojban for indirect questions then
kau cannot be a mere focus marker and must instead be the magic thingy
that makes direct q-words indirect. Things'd probably be semantically/logically
neater if kau were the focus marker and qkau for indirect questions were invalid,
but that'd invalidate a HELL of lot of usage!


The cmavo list says that {kau} is focus in INDIRECT questions, so it does not have a defined function in DIRECT questions (which are, presumably, syntactically distinct). Indeed, the Refgram has {kau} as "indirect question marker."  This seems to preclude its use in DIRECT questions altogether.  But the Refgram also uses it for a peculiar kind of emphasis -- the question and the answer, which would work indirectly, I suppose.  But is too atrocious a usage to carry over to direct questions as well.

Surely, fronting with {zo'u} and emphasis with {ba'e} provide enough material to take care of the problem. (The corresponding things do in English, apparently.) --part1_16d.1298077.28db6f6c_boundary--