Re: the other side of the kau

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la lojbab cusku di'e

> I asked Nora about her 'other' non-question use of "kau", and now recall
> where the "knowledge" definition of kau came from.  Most of our usages
> of "kau" have indeed been 'questions'.  But her original example
> paralleled "I know *who* went to the store" (mi djuno le du'u makau
> klama le zarci) with "I know *that it was Mary that* went to the store"
> (mi djuno ledu'u la meiris. kau klama le zarci).  As far as Nora knows,
> we have developed no new way to stress what piece of a subordinate
> predication abstraction is the 'known' information, while supplying that
> information.

It is not the "known" information that kau stresses. It is in that example
because you are using the predicate "know". Compare with: "I suspect who
went to the store", {mi smadi le du'u makau klama le zarci} and "I suspect
that it was Mary that went to the store", {mi smadi le du'u la meiris kau
klama le zarci}. Now {kau} flags the "suspected" information. It is better
to not use {djuno} as the only example for {kau}, or things get mixed up
with the meaning of the predicate. {kau} only means something related to
"known" when used with {djuno}.

According to the grammar paper, using {makau} or {la meiris kau} is
equivalent, only that the latter suggests what is the answer to the indirect
question, but doesn't really assert it.

The best way to say "I know that it was Mary that went to the store" I think
would be {mi djuno le du'u ba'e la meiris klama le zarci}.


> The "makau" style indirect 'questions' to her are really
> the same statement, but they falsely resemble questions in English (and
> maybe in other European languages) when what is really being done in "I
> know *who* went to the store" is ellipsis:  (mi djuno ledu'u zo'ekau
> klama le zarci).  There is no 'question' and it is unloglandic to think
> of it as a question.

I don't think of it as a question, I think of it as the answer to a question.

In any case, whatever you say about "who", "what", "where", etc in their
roles as indirect question also applies to "whether", so whichever method
you use to translate those, the same method should be used to translate it.


> I may be reading more into her idea than she has ever actually said, but
> I think she would favor the Lojbanic way to be to supply the information
> rather than to make it a dangling 'question', which has a tantalizing
> hint of 'I know something you don't and I'm not going to tell you what
> it is'.

But you don't always have the information to supply. Consider "she knows
who went to the store". The speaker doesn't know who went to the store,
and there is no tantalizing hint of anything: {ko'a djuno le du'u makau
klama le zarci}.


> Thus "jei" becomes more justified - you say "mi djuno ledu'u li pakau
> jei broda" vs.  "mi djuno ledu'u xukau broda", taking 2 extra syllables
> but those extra syllables provide the key information.  (You could also
> say "mi djuno ledu'u ja'akau broda").

That's if you want to suggest that what you know is the affirmative of
the bridi, but "I know whether broda" suggests no such thing, I may know
that broda is true or that it is false (or that it s somewhat true, in
fuzzy logic). All it says is that I know the answer to {xu broda}.

Jorge