Re: Q-less kau (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>Lojbab:
>> I suspect that most usages of indoirect questions are referring to known
>> answers of those questions - and indeed that is why I originally glossed
>> "kau" as a knowledge discursive - dakau meant "something da and I know what
>> da is).
>
>*That's* the usage of kau I was trying to remember the other
>week. Since this didn't make it into the refgram, is it now
>obsolete?

No.  It is just not part of the prescription.  Lots of stuff did not make it
into the prescription, usually because it was too fuzzily understood (by
John) for him to authoritatively write about it.

Actually eben the above may not be correct, since if it makes the textbook
it becomes part of the prescription, but not part of the formally described
prescription.  But it is not my intent to add to the refgram in doing the
textbook.  I just don't want silly arguments about "Is it canon?" if something
should appear there that is  not explcitly suipported by or contradicted by
the refgrammar.  (If it contradicts the refgrammar within the domain of
the refgrammar, I thnk that the refgrammar takes prec4edence, but I am not
sure what we decided on this.  There is a precedence in any case.

lojbab