More Wind from the North

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!iad>]

>  Date:     Wed, 17 Jun 1992 01:45:59 -0400
>  From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@COM.GREBYN>
>
>  The fact that it is possible to come up with a situation where the semantics
>  of kau get a little fuzzy does not mean that it isn't useful,
>  especially since the English equivalents are none too clear either.

That the English equivalents are none too clear may be a fault of
English, or of my English.  The Bulgarian equivalents are quite clear.
I think the Greek ones ought to be clear too.  I saw that there were
_two_ options in Lojban (question word alone vs question word plus
{kau}), as opposed to an unlimited number of levels of question
embedding, and therefore questioned the appropriateness of the
mechanism.  I hadn't thought of the possibility of subscripting {kau},
as John suggested.

>  I know who you know that comes
>  mi djuno makau poi djuno ledu'u [ke'a] klama

{poi do djuno}, you mean.  I don't particularly like it.  You should
be able to do it without clefting.

>  I know that you know who comes.
>  mi djuno ledu'u do djuno tu'amakau poi klama

Same thing.

>  (or perhaps the shorter)
>  mi djuno ledu'u do djuno tu'a le klama

This is an example of an indirect question without a question word -
what John is looking for.  I'd wager this could be done in some
natural languages as well.

>  My guess on
>  mi djuno ledu'u do djuno ledu'u makau klama
>  I know who it is that I know you know comes.

Mine is `I know that you know who comes' or `I know who you know that
comes', depending on how we define {kau}.

Ivan