Re: More Wind from the North

[John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan>]

la mark. clsn. cusku di'e

> We have "kau" to flag "the point of interest" in a du'u abstraction used
> with {djuno} or the like  (loosely speaking).  But what should we attach it
> to, for indefinite situations?

Any cmavo belonging to the correct selma'o will do.  Thus:

>  {mi djuno ledu'u do co'ekau}

and

> {mi djuno ledu'u do mokau}

mean (by intention) exactly the same thing:  "I know what you are/do".
Indeed, even:

	mi djuno ledu'u do cmavokau

presumably means the same thing yet again; the normal meaning of the selbri
is totally disconnected.   Yes, it's a kludge.

> Trouble is, in this situation, we're dealing with a connective, and I don't
> think there *is* an indefinite connective.

There isn't.

> So Nick used "jikau".  And Ivan
> doesn't like it.  And I'm none too keen on it myself.
>
> Would slapping an indefinite-connective cmavo on the barbie help?  Maybe,
> but it seems like a band-aid.  As Nick (?) said, the trouble comes from
> trying to cram 2nd-order logic into a 1st-order logical language.  Can
> anything be done?

If you can think of what would be better than this "-kau" business altogether,
that would do the trick.  Does anybody know of a language where indirect
questions are >not< expressed with question words?  They are in English,
German, French, Esperanto, and Chinese, for sure....

--
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban