From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 06 08:06:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Aug 2001 15:06:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 67694 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2001 15:06:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Aug 2001 15:06:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.143) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 15:06:42 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:06:42 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:06:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:06:41 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2001 15:06:42.0050 (UTC) FILETIME=[66678E20:01C11E89] From: "Jorge Llambias" la ~mark cusku di'e >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}, How do you get that implication? In {mi djuno le du'u da klama} I may not know at all who goes. Also, the covered up answer could be {noda}. Remember that makau covers up the relevant answer, not just any true answer. >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? This "identity of the answer" is very confusing to me. {makau} stands for the answer to {ma}, that's all. {du'u ... makau} is a du'u, not an identity, whatever that is, and {ka ... makau} is a ka. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp