Re: the other side of the kau

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la lojbab cusku di'e

> Hey, the grammar paper was written by someone otrher than Nora and may not
> be right.

No problem, I'm just trying to learn. If the grammar paper is wrong, then
let's clarify the matter.

> Whether it asserts or not when a value is supplied can be
> argued.  I do not like making any assumptions about the significance of
> ba'e to semantics, so that option is at least as questionable.

The sentence in question is "I know that it was Mary that went to the store".

This says the same as {mi djuno le du'u la meiris klama le zarci}, only
that in Lojban, la meiris is not emphasized.

You want to use {kau} to emphasize la meiris, but this is contrary to
what the grammar paper says about kau. I want to use {ba'e} to emphasize
la meiris.  What is wrong with that? Why is it questionable? Isn't the
only significance of ba'e to emphasize something?

> Back when we proposed kau, I think the norm was to use dakau rather than
 makau,
> another case where intermediate conventions that have not been much used seem
> to have become 'rules' without much discussion.

I have no problem with using either. Using {makau} allows me to interpret
{kau} as "the answer to the marked question".

> Note that with a couple of exceptions, I have not reviewed any of Cowan's
> grammar papers.  They are NOT baselined or cast in concrete.  (And a good
> thing too, given the turmoil the "any" question has been causing.)

The grammar papers are in general extremely careful with doubtful topics.
The "any" question is not dealt with in them, and the "problem" with
SE conversion is very carefully avoided by not having any examples where
this could be an issue. (At least I couldn't find any.)

Jorge