From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Aug 05 18:58:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Aug 2001 01:58:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 81815 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2001 01:58:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Aug 2001 01:58:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.57) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 01:58:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jjllambias@hotmail.com Received: from [10.1.10.118] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Aug 2001 01:58:25 -0000 Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 01:58:22 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Message-ID: <9kktju+agoi@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 682 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 200.69.11.0 From: jjllambias@hotmail.com la xod cusku di'e > In English, the answer to "Who went to the store?" is "John", not "John > went to the store". I can't believe we are actually having an argument about this. Of course both are possible answers in the broad sense. I was only discussing what we mean when we say that {le du'u ...makau} stands for the relevant "answer". In that context we are talking of the full sentence answer. >It is this way in Lojban too: "ma klama" asks for a > sumti, not a bridi. If you prefer to put it that way, then the question is just {ma}, not {ma klama}. So {makau} stands for the answer to {ma}. I don't think we are in any disagreement here, really. mu'o mi'e xorxes