From xod@sixgirls.org Sun Aug 05 16:28:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 5 Aug 2001 23:28:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 1624 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2001 23:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2001 23:28:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2001 23:28:38 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f75NSbg15518 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 19:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 19:28:37 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la xod cusku di'e > > >Except that in "I know who went to store", the phrase "who went to store" > >really does symbolize an answer to the question. But that is what Jorge > >says is false, and I can't find anything in the Book or the archives that > >directly contradicts him. > > I don't know where you got the idea that I say that is false. > All I said is that the answer to "who went to the store?" is > "John went to the store", not "John". A du'u is always a bridi, > even when it contains a kau. In English, the answer to "Who went to the store?" is "John", not "John went to the store". It is this way in Lojban too: "ma klama" asks for a sumti, not a bridi. A du'u + Qkau contains information that answers the question, but it is not purely an answer. ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!