Subject: RE: [lojban] ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:16:22 +0100

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >Excellent point: yes, there is a risk of gardenpathing. In a sense, if
> >we can get away with "du'u ... Q-kau", then we should be able to get
> >away with "du'u ... ce'u" and dispense with ka. OTOH, if we need ka
> >to forewarn us of the presence of a ce'u, then we need a new abstractor
> >to forewarn us of the presence of Q-kau.
> 
> The obvious candidate is {jei}, it already means {du'u xukau}.

This is controversial. In 90% of usage [including Refgram usage], yes; 
but by definition, no. Either the usage or the definition has to be
wrong.

Anyway, I take it that you are proposing a novel definition for {jei},
i.e. {du'u} that contains a Q-kau, so "whether" would be {jei xu kau}.

I wouldn't rush into this overhastily. We've already established that
ka clauses can contain Q-kau, so the current situation is:

ce'u Q-kau
ka yes yes
ka yes no
du'u no yes
du'u no no

Under your proposals we'd have:

ce'u Q-kau
?? yes yes
ka yes no
jei no yes
du'u no no

--And.