From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Sun Nov 28 17:44:34 1999 X-Digest-Num: 296 Message-ID: <44114.296.1608.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 17:44:34 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" > > 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 you're right. What I would need is: "My eating that which I eat, and not something else, is a result of that which is in the fridge, and not something else, being in the fridge". Would that do it? > > 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 Right, and I think I also need to add: "... and if nobody came, then John knows that nobody came." And I need to add something like that in the prenex version of what I have for dinner, too, to cover the cases where I had nothing for dinner or where there is nothing in the fridge. Indirect questions are complicated beasts. co'o mi'e xorxes