Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la .and. cusku di'e

> I am now become dubious about the utility of Q-kau. {Makau} can
> notionally be replaced by {da}, thus:
> 
> [1] koha djuno le duhu makau klama
> [2] koha djuno le duhu (da zohu) da klama
> 
> That is, to claim {koha djuno le duhu makau klama} is merely
> to claim "She knows whether there is someone that came". It
> seems the same as {koha djuno le duhu xukau da klama}.

No, Example 2 is "She knows that someone came", i.e. "She knows that there
is someone who came"; this is not the same as "She knows who [it is that] came".
When I queried Linguist List a year or so ago on the matter, it turned out
that the minority of languages that do not use embedded question forms
(possibly with inversion, like English) for indirect questions simply blur
the distinction, using Example 1-like forms to express both meanings, but Lojban
mustn't.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.