{kau} vs. {ba'e}

[la gleki]

It was previously mentioned that 

{.i ko'a broda xu = .i xu ko'a ba'e broda}

The example

http://dag.github.com/cll/11/8/

8.4)   mi djuno le du'u

             la djan. kau pu

                 klama le zarci

       I know the predication-of/fact-that

             John [indirect question] [past]

                 going to the store.

       I know who went to the store, namely John.

       I know that it was John who went to the store.

is rather interesting.

It shows the shift of focus to {la djan.}

Then why not use {kau} instead of {ba'e} all the time?

{mi kau djuno le du'u la djan. kau pu klama lo zarci} ?

If you need arrange foci by their strength you can always say

{mi kausai djuno le du'u la djan. kau pu klama lo zarci}.

So my question is:

in what cases {ba'e} is irreplaceable?

[Jacob Errington]

Simply because {la djan kau} is arguably never correct, {kau} can never "replace" {ba'e}. {kau} has a particular use, namely to mark indirect *questions*. {kau} on anything but a question is weird, at best, and complete nonsense, at worst.

{ba'e} on the other hand marks emphasis. Emphasis and indirect questions are two separate ideas. 

{.i mi djuno lo du'u xukau la djan ba'e broda} "I know whether John brodas (and not whether he does/is some other selbri)"

{.i mi djuno lo du'u ba'e xu kau la djan ba'e broda} "I know *whether* John brodas (and not if it pertains to some other indirect question)"

The thing about {makau} is that it's somewhat referentless, like {da}, and it's best to think about {[question]-kau} constructs as being single items of the [question]'s selma'o.

As for "replacing kau with ba'e", I must say that replacing *incorrect* usage of {kau}, such as {la djan kau}, with {ba'e}, in the form of {ba'e la djan} is a very excellent solution.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/1sRlldvrIIEJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[la gleki]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:32:24 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

Simply because {la djan kau} is arguably never correct, {kau} can never "replace" {ba'e}. {kau} has a particular use, namely to mark indirect *questions*. {kau} on anything but a question is weird, at best, and complete nonsense, at worst.

{ba'e} on the other hand marks emphasis. Emphasis and indirect questions are two separate ideas. 

{.i mi djuno lo du'u xukau la djan ba'e broda} "I know whether John brodas (and not whether he does/is some other selbri)"

{.i mi djuno lo du'u ba'e xu kau la djan ba'e broda} "I know *whether* John brodas (and not if it pertains to some other indirect question)"

The thing about {makau} is that it's somewhat referentless, like {da}, and it's best to think about {[question]-kau} constructs as being single items of the [question]'s selma'o.

As for "replacing kau with ba'e", I must say that replacing *incorrect* usage of {kau}, such as {la djan kau}, with {ba'e}, in the form of {ba'e la djan} is a very excellent solution.

So is it something that needs to be fixed in this chapter of the CLL? 

[Jacob Errington]

On 1 October 2012 03:05, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:32:24 AM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

Simply because {la djan kau} is arguably never correct, {kau} can never "replace" {ba'e}. {kau} has a particular use, namely to mark indirect *questions*. {kau} on anything but a question is weird, at best, and complete nonsense, at worst.

{ba'e} on the other hand marks emphasis. Emphasis and indirect questions are two separate ideas. 

{.i mi djuno lo du'u xukau la djan ba'e broda} "I know whether John brodas (and not whether he does/is some other selbri)"

{.i mi djuno lo du'u ba'e xu kau la djan ba'e broda} "I know *whether* John brodas (and not if it pertains to some other indirect question)"

The thing about {makau} is that it's somewhat referentless, like {da}, and it's best to think about {[question]-kau} constructs as being single items of the [question]'s selma'o.

As for "replacing kau with ba'e", I must say that replacing *incorrect* usage of {kau}, such as {la djan kau}, with {ba'e}, in the form of {ba'e la djan} is a very excellent solution.

So is it something that needs to be fixed in this chapter of the CLL? 

In my very honest opinion, yes.

[Adam Lopresto]

{kau} on a non-question word (in a context where an indirect question would make sense) has a simple and obvious meaning: it's the answer to the indirect question. It's not just any old form of emphasis. No need to change anything about the language but your own (mis)understanding.

[selpa'i]

Am 02.10.2012 18:19, schrieb Adam Lopresto:

{kau} on a non-question word (in a context where an indirect question would make sense) has a simple and obvious meaning: it's the answer to the indirect question. It's not just any old form of emphasis. No need to change anything about the language but your own (mis)understanding.

I agree. That's how kau has been used with non-question words and it makes sense to me. It's certainly not nonsense.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

doị mèlbi mlenì'u
   .i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
   .i do tìnsa càrmi
gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
   .i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku

[la gleki]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 8:44:10 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:

Am 02.10.2012 18:19, schrieb Adam Lopresto:

{kau} on a non-question word (in a context where an indirect question would make sense) has a simple and obvious meaning: it's the answer to the indirect question. It's not just any old form of emphasis. No need to change anything about the language but your own (mis)understanding.

I agree. That's how kau has been used with non-question words and it makes sense to me. It's certainly not nonsense.

Then more explanation needs to be added if at least two jbopre misunderstand this. 

[Michael Turniansky]

  I remember once, many years ago, when I used kau in that fashion in a sentence and more than one jobcre said, "you can't do that!"  And I replied "I most certainly can", and recited chapter and verse from the CLL.  

              --gejyspa

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/iHV8gUpPy_oJ.