Re: kau

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> And:
> >> >ni'o co'i le cerni cu preti fofo'a feleli'i fo'a capu sipna ge'ekau
>  >> "In the morning they asked her how she had slept."
>  >> I would use {peikau} rather than {ge'ekau}, but in any
> >> case it is definitely an indirect question.
> >
> >I infer that {ge`e} is a BAI question word.
>
> No, is an unspecified emotion. ge'e is to UI as zo'e is to KOhA.
> That's why I would have used pei instead, which is the question UI.

I really must get organized with my Lojban reference materials,
so I stop making these gaffes.

Still, I'm glad to see that I had indeed remembered an example
of kau being used without a question word.

Anyway, as Lee said in a later message, {peikau} is still not
that great a rendition, is it?

I would suggest:

co'i le cerni cu preti fofo'a fa lo du`u fo'a pu sipna se kai ma kau

> >> It is not very clear to me why {ba'e} couldn't just have been a UI,
> >> and thus spare yet another selmaho, but that's another story.
> >
> >Then ba`e would have had to follow the word it marks, rather than
> >precede it. Maybe that was a factor.
>
> Yes, probably. But why was there a need for it to precede?

I don't know. I remember once noticing a rationale for that
selma`o, but don't now remember what it was.

> >Anyway, ba`e means "new info", which is not the same as focus.
>
> ba'e means "emphasize next". (I understand what you meant by
> {ba'e ko'a} now. I was a bit puzzled.)

Apparently I meant {ko`a bi`u}. I would have been totally
flummoxed, not just a bit puzzled.

> >The English it-cleft construction focalizes. So I think I'll
> >stick with kau as a focalizer.
>
> Isn't emphasis something like focus? Maybe not, I don't know.

Yes but you can have one without the other.

--And