Re: Q-kau

[Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>]

> djer says:
> I would have to argue with this. I KNOW what you KNOW goes to I know
> that which you know; to me.
>     I found this example in ESSENTIAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR.
>     "I admire a man * who has convictions.*
>     We can start * whenever you're ready.*
>     In analyzing such sentences it is customary to say that *who has
>     convictions* and *whenever you're ready* are subordinate clauses; and
>     that *I admire a man* and We can start* are main clauses. "
>     There is an alternative interpretation where the whole sentence is
>     the main clause."
>     But no ? is used.

Sure. There are no "indirect questions" at all here. No {kau}.
It comes out as

.i mi salci lo nanmu poi birti       (attribute clause, I believe, not sure)
.i mi'o ka'e cfari ca lenu do bredi  (time clause)

>     Another source:  Harper's English Grammar
>   "  Who, as both interrogative and relative, refers to persons only.
>     Note how the use of the relative (who) serves the double purpose of
>     connective and relating agent.. Thus you say *We met a man who
>     directed us*."

Again:

.i mi penmi lo prenu poi za'e selfargau mi

You can't get this as an abstraction. Unlike knowing, you do NOT meet
a fact, you meet a person. No {kau}.

>     I take this to mean that they are not questions. However things may
>     change as we cross the Atlantic. You seem to see implicit or
>     explicit questions embedded in these constructions that I am not
>     aware of.  I cannot find any unquoted who clauses which are implied
>     questions.

Here I agree with you. In "I explained what that is" doesn't ASK anything.
I would translate it as {mi ciksi fo lodu'u ta du dakau}. But
"You didn't explain what this is", if I do not know what it is, I would
render it as {do na ciksi fo lodu'u ti du makau}.
Reasoning: {ma} is used when the speaker doesn't know a sumti, and it acts
like an empty space. If we use {kau} on {ma}, {ma} loses its value as an
interrogative, but it still says "I do not know this." The listener is
no longer required to answer, for the sentence is not a question, although
it is a statement of continued ignorance of the matter. I do not find
anything wrong with {makau} EXCEPT when it is used with known values. So
I'd say that I wouldn't say {mi pu cilre ledu'u makau finka lo dictergu'i}
but {mi pu cilre ledu'u lakau .edison. finka lo dictergu'i} or
{mi pu cilre ledu'u dakau finka lo dictergu'i}.

But that's just my gut feeling...

ta'o I asked my teacher in old Irish to look up how are sentences like
"I see who went" expressed in that language, since it DOESN'T HAVE
relative pronouns to confuse us. He said he'd give it some thought.
Maybe I'll be able to post someting on it next week.

> djer

co'o mi'e. goran.

--
Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get
e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi