Subject: Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 02:07:20 -0000

--- In lojban@y..., Invent Yourself <xod@s...> wrote:
> 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.

Yes. This is really what du'u+kau is all about, or at least what it
was invented to solve. xod's description of it as "the identity
of..." is apt. Or to put it another way, {le du'u QUESTION-WITH-KAU}
is "the identity of the answer to the question" (NOT the answer
itself). But then, as And says, we really aren't understanding kau
properly. Because in this case, the {du'u} isn't really a {du'u} at
all. It's not a sentence, it's something nebulous about the answer to
a sentence. Moreover, it also leaves me wondering what {du'u makau
klama} would mean as a selbri. If John was indeed the one that went,
would you say {la djan. du'u makau klama}? I don't think so; this is
back to substituting the answer for "the identity of the answer." 
*Maybe* {tu'a djan. cu du'u makau klama}. But since {tu'a la djan.}
expands to {le su'u la djan. co'e}, I can reasonably ask {la djan. mo}
in this sentence... and I don't know the answer.

Jorge's analysis, that {mi djuno le du'u makau klama} means the same
as {mi djuno le du'u la djan. klama} but with {la djan.} "covered up"
seems to imply to me that it means the same as {mi djuno le du'u da
klama}, and moreover seems to be at odds with how I've seen it used.

The more I think about it, the more I keep thinking it's a peculiarity
of certain selbri, like jinvi and djuno, and isn't a general-case kind
of problem. But it seems to crop up so much, is that really true? 
But where else except in "knowing" and "expressing" kinds of things do
you have to talk about the identity of the answer to a question
without actually having the answer?

I think I'm rambling, and may not be making much sense.

~mark