Subject: Re: [lojban] dai harder (was: If it ain't broke, don't fix it (was: an approa...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:58:07 EDT

In a message dated 6/18/2001 12:13:21 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Why not use {kau} for those indirect indicators? Compare:
> 
> la frank na djuno le du'u xukau la meris klama ti
> "Frank does not know whether Mary is coming."
> 
> la frank facki le du'u uikau la meris klama ti
> "Frank finds out that yippee! Mary is coming."
> 

Because there is no indirect question here, only "indirect emotion" (bad 
phrase). The seond looks like "Frank finds out whether he is happy about 
Mary's coming" (sorta).

<As for {tirna}, can we really use it in both senses:

la frank tirna le nu la meris klama ti
"Frank hears Mary coming."

?la frank tirna le du'u la meris klama ti
"Frank hears (is told) that Mary is coming."

Maybe {la frank tirna lu la meris klama ti li'u}, which would
mean we can say {la frank tirna le sedu'u la meris klama ti}.>

That last is pretty clearly OK as is {la frank tirna tu'a le du'u la meris 
klama ti}. I am inclined to think that the one without {tu'a} works as well, 
but am also willing to leave that up to usage or authoritative decree. Is 
{ko'a cusku le du'u ...} legit? probably not, and so {tirna le du'u} 
wouldn't be either. Ah well, {tu'a} is cheap.