Subject: Re: [lojban] Dumb answers to good questions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:12:28 EDT

In a message dated 9/20/2001 9:42:47 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.)