From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Tue Nov 30 07:03:56 1999 X-Digest-Num: 298 Message-ID: <44114.298.1619.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:03:56 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" I would agree with you--in English. But I don't think the interpretation >of the Lojban should be rooted in debatable English semantics... I agree, it should be rooted in logic as far as possible. But we haven't as yet been able to explicitly determine the logic behind {kau}, even though the subject came up several times before. My interpretation is not based on English semantics only, it also applies to Spanish and very likely to other languages. If there is a better interpretation for {kau}, then we should consider the arguments in its favour, of course. >Accepting your way for the moment, how would the meaning implied with (1) >be rendered? We should rephrase the indirect question so that what Mary knows becomes the relevant answer. For example, "Mary knows who came besides Paul." But before deciding whether ot not {kau} should follow the logic of indirect questions in English, we should be able to make explicit what is the logic of indirect questions in English (and other natlangs). co'o mi'e xorxes