From a-rosta@alphaphe.com Mon Aug 19 11:35:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a-rosta@alphaphe.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 19 Aug 2002 18:35:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 21366 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 18:35:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2002 18:35:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.alphaphe.net) (217.33.150.223) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 18:35:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 24295 invoked by uid 101); 19 Aug 2002 18:35:41 -0000 Received: from host62-6-121-27.webport.bt.net (HELO oemcomputer) (62.6.121.27) by smtp.alphaphe.net with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 18:35:41 -0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] kau -- What does it really mean?! Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:37:15 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <2d.21bb29e7.2a8eeff4@aol.com> X-EDATA: smtp.alphaphe.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AlphaPhe.Net (www.alphaphe.net) From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110020381 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: > a-rosta@alphaphe.com writes: > << > . What I meant is that > I think the best way to achieve a unified account of direct and > indirect questions -- i.e. a unified account of semantic interrogativity > -- is to adopt a "performative-verb-head style grammar", which then > handles direct questions in the way that indirect questions are > handled. The motivation goes beyond that, in that semantically, > direct questions involve an element of directive illocutionary force > -- or at least the act of posing a question -- plus an element of > interrogativity, while in indirect questions there is only the > element of interrogativity. > >> > > But indirect questions rarely have the property of interrogativity > anyhow: they are oblique references to the *answers* but they don't > pose the questions. Let's not quibble about what "interrogativity" means -- it obscures my basic point, which is that: semantics of direct questions = rogative illocutionary force + semantics of 'indirect questions'. By 'indirect questions' I am thinking mainly of English subordinate interrogative clauses (in the grammatical sense). > The implicate that the audience at least does > not know the answer (no, "implicate" is too strong: "suggest") and > allow, in most cases, that the speaker does not, though the subject > of the overt head may. I should have thought that the directive force > of a question was and essential part of interrogativity -- a question > that does not require an aswer is no question at all. Yes, "I ask F?" > probably comes out to "I direct you to tell me for what x Fx" (more > or less -- it is not the x but the Fx that is to be told). Okay, so no dispute. --And.