Re: jei

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la lojbab cusku di'e

>  I guess I could also make
> it clear with lekau jei broda , which to me seems more obvious than ledu'u
> xukau - which seems very malglico for some reason to me (or malrarna) when
> jei is explicitly available.  xu just too strongly asks a question to me,
> even if metalinguistically marked.

{le du'u xukau} malglico? I would have said the opposite. In English,
"whether" is the only irregular indirect question, in that its form
is different from the direct one, while all the others use the same
word for direct and indirect questions.

In Lojban, I would expect all indirect questions to be treated in the same
manner, why should "whether" be different? Because it is different in
English?

It is not a problem that "xu" asks a question. "kau" means "the answer
to this question". That's why I much prefer to use question words with
"kau" rather than other words, that are equally permitted. For example

        mi djuno le du'u makau klama
        I know who is coming.
        I know what is the answer to the question "who is coming?".

        mi smadi le du'u do ponse xokau plise
        I guess how many apples you have.
        I guess what is the answer to the question "how many apples
        do you have?".

And I don't see why "xu" should be any different:

        mi do tugni le du'u xukau la lojban xamgu bangu
        I agree with you on whether Lojban is a good language.
        I agree with you on what is the answer to the question
        "is Lojban a good language?".

I really don't see what is malglico about {le du'u xukau}, it seems
to me to be very Lojbanic, making indirect questions more regular in
Lojban than they are in English. If anything, I'd say using {jei} for
"whether" is malglico, because it tends to make Lojban have the same
irregularity that English has in having a special word for the yes/no
indirect question.

Jorge