Subject: Question, direct, indirect and spurious (was Lojban Tautologies and half a dozen

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:04:44 EST

1.{ko'a cusku lu xu la djan klama li'u}
or more precisely
2. {ko'a te preti fi lu xu la djan klama li'u}

Now, can we say
3. {ko'a te preti fi le du'u xukau la djan klama} 
and mean the same as above -- up to the words used?This would be an indirect 
question in a literal sense.

It is clear that we cannot say -- under even the present usages, let alone 
the new proposals --
4. {ko'a cusku le du'u xukau la djan klama}
without meaning that ko'a said which way it was with John's coming -- that he 
did or he didn't or he n'd it (for some n in the range of possible truth 
values in this case). That is, this is no longer an indiect question at all, 
but an indirect answer, just as the corresponding form is in English:"He said 
whether John came."

If 3 does mean essentially the same as 2, but 1 and 4 are not so related, 
what does thjis say about the notion of "indirect question" and the way we 
use them in Lojban.

The obvious suggestion is that there is an underlying thing expressed by {le 
du'u qkau bridi} that is treated in different ways by different predicates: 
with {preti} it picks out the question part, with {cusku} an answer, with 
{djuno} a correct answer, and so on.

One suggestion as to what that common thing might be is found in the usual 
theory that a question is a set of answers. {preti} picks on the whole set 
(or,rather, the set of propositions derived from it), most other predicates 
-- that make sense with propositions -- pick an unspecified member of the 
set, sometime requiring that it be true, but otherwise not being precise.

The clearest connection is that 3 can be meaningfully connected (it may even 
be a definition) with
5. {ko'a cpedu le jetnu du'u xokau la djan klama}

linking asking questions with other kinds of askings, as should be done.

If this line of reasoning is carried on, it appears that the portion after 
{du'u} in these expressions, the {qkau bridi}, refers to a class of 
sentences, which {du'u} converts to a class of propositions and which {le} 
(or whatever -- I have used {le} throughout, but suspect that it is almost 
always the wrong article -- we'll take that up later) and the superordinate 
predicate chhose various possible extractions from. [OK, it's later. One 
possible story about whether you have questions or answers would be done by 
the article: {lo'e},say, for questions, {lo} for answers. I think this has 
as much merit and greater possibilities as the vocabulary item separation. 
But ti does not affect the argument of the moment.]

What, then, is an "indirect question" that is not subordinated to article, 
{du'u} and some predicate, a free-floating {qkau}?

One obvious suggestion is that it is a direct question, the one obtained by 
dropping the {kau}. After all, {kau} was introduced to avoid the ambiguity 
that arose if one used a q in a {le du'u} clause, but that is not a problem 
outside such a context and the {kau} is superfluous. So, it is just the set 
of answers presented for your selection.

Another suggestion -- less obvious from abstract considerations but fairly 
natural for English speakers -- is that it is a disjunctive assertion of all 
the answers. A question does look more like a sentence than a name of a set, 
after all, and so should be treated as such. So we get the "whatever" 
interpretation. 
Most of the cases so far have used this whatever as a condition --as it were, 
since it always holds -- for something else, but have been defective in 
connecting the two parts. It would seem that what is wanted is to connect 
the purported sentence directly with {ganai} or to put into a {va'o le nu}. 
In the first case, it gives a true antecedent and thus a sentence equivalent 
to the consequent, which is probably the point. In the second, following the 
original pattern, it would reduce to a single event, presumably the one that 
actually obtains (as yet unknown, perhaps) and so again reduces to the 
consequent, but with some loss of generality. Both of these seem, in fact, 
to come to no more than {ro da zo'u ganai da jdima ta gi mi te vecnu ta} -- a 
much clearer or less controversial form. And one that lends itself naturally 
to such typical questions as "Even if it cost a billion dollars, would you 
still buy it?" (nevermind how hard it is to figure out how to say this in 
Lojban).

Another possibility, flowing from the latter above is that a free-floating 
{qkau} clause is just one member of the set it represents, presumably a true 
one. This would take the selection of the member away from either the 
superordinate predicate or article and palce it in the {qkau} clause itself. 
But, in fact, such clauses do not always pick the same member -- {djuno} 
requires a true one, most others do not, and some may even require a false 
one. I suppose that one could argue that the insubordinate position serves 
in the role of superordinate predicate and/or article to pick whatever it 
picks -- must the pick always be a true one?

In sum, the notion of a free-floating {qkau} clause, does not have any 
obvious validity and, if allowed, does not have an obvious choice as it use. 
But whatever , choice is made, there is a standard Lojban sentence which 
accomplishes the same goal.