Subject: Re: goi

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:02:40 -0000

la and cusku di'e

> I hadn't realized that using "ko'a" in this way might still be at
all 
> controversial. That is, I had thought that is was well established
that
> ko'a series KOhA were not necessarily anaphoric (i.e. do not
necessarily
> have some antecedent in the discourse).

Maybe it's just me, but I find an unassigned "ko'a" to be quite
strange. OTOH, I could probably get used to it.

> I don't understand your "makau" idea. You're welcome to run it by me
> again, but I feel that the logic of Q-kau is too ill-understood for
> us to extend its range of usage beyond those we are completely
> comfortable with on an intuitive level (which to my mind and those
of
> others would be the range of usage that is analogous to the
distribution
> of subordinate interrogative clauses in English and other natural
> languages).

I think it's a natural expansion of the use in subordinate clauses.
Q-kau is replaced by the most specific and relevant thing that is
grammatical and makes the bridi true. For example:

mi djuno le du'u le nanmu cu citka makau
I know what the man eats. (i.e. I know that the man eats X, where x
is the most specific and relevant thing to make the bridi true.)

le nanmu cu citka makau
The man eats it. (The specific thing that he eats.)

le nanmu cu citka makau poi kukte ny
The man eats the thing that's tasty for him (the specific thing.)
(basically the same as 'le nanmu cu citka le kukte be ny')

I think it's similar to "le su'o da", but "makau" can refer to no da,
and also there are forms like "mokau", "jikau", etc.

mu'o mi'e adam