Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> > > I am now become dubious about the utility of Q-kau. {Makau} can
> > > notionally be replaced by {da}, thus:
> > >   koha djuno le duhu makau klama
> > >   koha djuno le duhu (da zohu) da klama
> > No, it may be that she knows that noone is coming.
> I mean that {da} (or {no da}) could be a replacement for {makau}
> that makes the bridi true.

I'm not sure whether we are arguing in circles here.

These two could be true at the same time:

(1)     ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama
(2)     ko'a djuno le du'u da klama

Also, these two could be true at the same time:

(1)     ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama
(3)     ko'a djuno le du'u noda klama

Also, these two could be true at the same time:

(1)     ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama
(4)     ko'a djuno le du'u ko'e klama

This does not mean that they are synonymous, it only means that
they are compatible. (4) implies (1), (3) implies (1), (2)
implies (1), (4) implies (2). But none is equivalent to (1).

> > > 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}.
> > Perhaps, but {ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama} strongly suggests
> > (without reaching the point of claiming) that she knows a useful
> > answer to the question, just as {ma klama} pragmatically asks for
> > a useful answer, even though in principle anything that makes
> > the sentence true is acceptable. (What is useful and how useful
> > it is depends, of course, on context.)
>
> I'll go along with this. Two interesting things have emerged from
> our discussion of Q-kau: (1) there are alternative locutions of form
> {da zohu ... le duhu ... da};

Alternative locutions that make different claims yes. Otherwise, to
make the same claim, your {da} has to be a {da poi sumti}, and then
a {la'e da} inside the du'u.

> (2) the truth-conditional meaning
> of Q-kau is not what we (or at least I) had originally thought
> it to be.

That's true. Originally, I hadn't realized that (2) must imply (1)
to be consistent with the use of direct questions. (But (1) does
not imply (2), so they are not equivalent.)

Jorge