Re: kau obverse

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la djer cusku di'e

>         mi djuno LE da kau klama le zarci
>
>         pleases the parser which sees {da kau klama le zarci} as one
>         sumti. Xa'a would just substitute for the LE.

That pleases the parser, but not in the way you suggest. It is a sentence
with selbri {djuno} and three sumti {mi} {le da kau klama} and {le zarci}

{le da kau klama} means {le klama pe da kau}, the goer associated with
{da kau}.

{le zarci} falls in the third place of {djuno}.


>         I definitely want the kau if it means "who".

It means at the same time more and less than "who". It doesn't cover all
the meanings of English "who", and it has many other meanings that "who"
does not have. You can't translate one word for one word, especially when
dealing with these multi-function ones.

>          It restricts the
>         (x),da, to persons.

No, it has nothing to do with persons. It serves for all indirect questions
"who", "what", "which", "where", "when", "why", "how", "whether", etc.

(Notice that I'm not saying it translates all those words always. Only in
their function as indirect questions.)


>         if I understand
>         the example in the definition. Without the kau it could be a
>         car that went to the market.

If you say {mi djuno le du'u makau klama le zarci} you could indeed be
talking about a car. It means "I know who/what went to the market".

Maybe the example should be changed, or better, two or three examples
should be given.


>         Alas, poor Yorik, I knew him well.
> xorxes: uu la iorik .i mi ri selsau
> djer:   uu la iorik .i mi rai pa djuno fi *xa'a ru

You don't need your xa'a for the x3 of djuno, it already accepts objects.
(Also, note pa=1  pu=past)

I see a difference between {mi selsau ra} = "I know him well" and
{mi rai djuno fi ra} = "I know well something about him".

But both are acceptable. What are the nuances of one or the other will
only be determined by usage.


>         I said I rested my case on xa'a, the language shifter cmavo.
>         It now appears to me that in spite of my efforts it is not
>         understood, and may even have made the infamous xorxes hit
>         list.

Now, where is the {ke} in that last tanru?  :)

Jorge