[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> >I haven't studied or thought about {kau}, so who knows, mebbe you're
> >right. But this doesn't convince me
>
> The way we sorted it out is to say that {lo'i du'u makau broda}
> is the set of answers to {ma broda}. It is not absolutely clear
> whether negative answers are included, that's why I'm in doubt
> about the instantiation bit, but I think they are. If I know
> that nobody did it, can I say "I know who did it: nobody"? I
> think yes
That kau debate hurt my head more than any other. Anyway, yes we
definitely (*including* pc) agreed that lo'i du'u Qkau is the
set of answers.
I don't think we ever managed to tell a coherent story about kau
itself, though. IOW, indirect questions are sets of (propositional)
answers, and du'u Qkau is the standard Lojban way for expressing
sets of answers, but kau itself can't be assigned independent
meaning.
--And.