From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Apr 24 16:23:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 24 Apr 2001 23:23:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 7378 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2001 23:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Apr 2001 23:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.153) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 23:23:39 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:23:39 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.40 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:23:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.40] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] RE:not only Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:23:38 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2001 23:23:39.0103 (UTC) FILETIME=[97CAC6F0:01C0CD15] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >It remains the case, though, that the official analysis of indirect >questions, as formulated by Rob, does not avoid indirect questions >in its periphrasis, and it is my hunch that locically, direct >interrogatives >make use of the basic logical machinery of indirect interrogatives, >rather than vice versa. That sounds reasonable, especially since you can always reformulate a direct question as an indirect one: "I am asking you how much money you have", "I am asking you whether you have any money", etc. I don't know whether they have exactly the same force as direct questions, but they do serve the same purpose. Something similar happens with commands. "Come here!" vs. "I am telling you to come here." We don't have the {kau} equivalent for indirect commands though, maybe we should. (Something that would correspond to the subjunctive in other languages.) co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.