From a.rosta@xxxxx.xxxx Sun Nov 28 15:13:36 1999
X-Digest-Num: 296
Message-ID: <44114.296.1607.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 23:13:36 -0000
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@xxxxx.xxxx
Subject: RE: "What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge"

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
> 
> 
> > What I have for dinner depends on what there is in the fridge.
> 
> le nu mi citka roda poi mi citka ke'a cu jalge
> le nu rode poi ke'a nenri le lekmi'i cu nenri le lekmi'i
> "My eating that which I eat is a result of
> that which is in the fridge being in the fridge".

I don't think this gets it. Yours (but not my original) would be 
true if the fridge contents' being fridge contents had, say, 
miraculously healed me of an inability to eat.

> I think this may point to a general explication of {kau},
> although in the general case the quantification
> should be outside. It doesn't seem to make a lot of
> difference in this case:
> 
> roda poi mi citka ke'a ro de poi ke'a nenri le lekmi'i
> zo'u le nu mi citka da cu jalge le nu de nenri le lekmi'i
> 
> 
> It seems to work for other indirect questions as well:
> 
> la djan djuno le du'u makau klama
> John knows who came.
> 
> ro da poi ke'a klama zo'u la djan djuno le du'u da klama
> For each x that came, John knows that x came.

I think you need to add

... and for each x that did not come, John knows that x
did not come

--And.