From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 06 19:15:26 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Aug 2001 02:15:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 88432 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2001 02:15:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2001 02:15:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2001 02:15:25 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.23]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010807021523.WNWB23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:15:23 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] ka + makau (was: ce'u (was: vliju'a
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:14:30 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKEJDEIAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <F207kJSFsxf4yp8ARf300000063@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >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 am not proposing anything, all I'm saying is that should a cmavo
> different from du'u be needed for indirect questions, jei would be
> the best choice. I'm not at all convinced that it is needed, I have
> never experienced any difficulty with du'u in that regard.

Yes: I'd rather go down the abandoning ka route.

> >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
> 
> {ni} is {ka sela'u makau} so we might as well put ni there.
> 
> But now we need another one for nu+kau, as in
> 
> le nu xokau prenu cu zvati cu spaji mi
> 
> So no, we don't need to duplicate every abstractor for
> indirect questions, thank you.

go'i. 

But I'm a bit uncomfortable with that "nu xokau". On the
one hand I see why a spaji should in general be a nu rather 
than a du'u, but OTOH du'u like "2+2=4" can surprise, and
this particular example seems to me to involve a du'u,
something like:

le nu tu'o du'u xo kau prenu cu zvati cu jetnu cu spaji mi

Sorry that I can't be more articulate in my rationale for
this.

--And.