Re: On logji lojbo discussions

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>>The answer can also be ja'a/na. That's how Lojban questions are usually
>>explained: they ask for a replacement word that makes the utterance true.
>
>1. Reference for bare ja'a/na as an answer to xu?

Just plain common sense. What else could they mean?

> (A bare NA is grammatical,
>but I don't recall it being discussed wth respect to "xu").

Well, we're discussing it now... :)  Don't you agree it makes eminent
sense?

>2. Neother ja'a/na nor go'i/nago'i is a replacement for "xu" since xu is
>a discursive having attitudinal grammar.  You cannot replace it by  the
>answer and have the resault be grammatical.

Not in general, I agree. But you can replace it when xu is at the start of
the bridi, as in standard yes/no questions.

>Thus xu is obviously an exception to the replacement rule.

Well, maybe not: better replacements might be {je'u}/{je'unai}.

>>Tell me whether John goes to the market.
>>He does. (He goes to the market.)
>>He doesn't. (He doesn't go to the market.
>>
>>Tell me whether "John goes to the market" is true.
>>It is. ("John goes to the market" is true.)
>>It isn't. ("John goes to the market" is not true.)
>
>I see that they are different.  I do not clearly see how it realtes to
>the Lojban.  Can you translate each of these into Lojban-as-you-see-it
>so I can see how the answers seem to be responsive/non-responsive to the
>indirect question?

Certainly:

i ko cusku le sedu'u xukau la djan klama le zarci
- i la djan klama le zarci
- i je'u la djan klama le zarci
- i la djan na klama le zarci
- i je'unai la djan klama le zarci

i ko cusku le sedu'u makau jei la djan klama le zarci
- i li pa jei la djan klama le zarci
- i li no jei la djan klama le zarci

> (In my opinuion, phrasing a direct question, which the
>above are, as an indirect question, isn't really kosher, but I understamd
that
>it is done in English.  Can it legitimately be done in Lojban?  Or does the
>kau marking on the xu make the question unaskable?

Yes, it can be done legitimately. Of course, it would be more
straightforward to simply use the direct question:

i xu la djan klama le zarci
- i je'u la djan klama le zarci

i ma jei la djan klama le zarci
- i li pa jei la djan klama le zarci

 >It is not any yes or no question - it is a pronoun representing the answer
>to either a yes/no or a connective question.  Thus it works like "who"
>and "what" grammatically, but in English at least, we cannot ask the
>direct question with "wehether" "*Whether you go to the store?"

"Whether" is a pronoun???

In any case, who said anything about using it for direct questions?

co'o mi'e xorxes