[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> {lo'i du'u makau broda} is the set of propositional answers
> to {ma broda}, i.e. the members are things like {le du'u la djan broda},
> {le du'u la meris broda} and even {le du'u noda zo'u da broda}.
>
> {le du'u makau broda} selects the relevant answer(s) in context.
> (True answers in the case of {djuno}, because of the semantics
> of djuno, not because of {kau}.)
(Tangent: How could makau ever take values that are false?)
So, makau is a variable that makes the statement true, by representing
whatever values are required for truth. But assuming the Butler did
it, then the du'u in
> i na vajni fa le du'u makau catra la lauras
> It doesn't matter who killed Laura.
doesn't mean "the identity of Laura's killer", but rather "The Butler
killed Laura", and the full sentence means "It doesn't matter that the
Butler killed Laura".
makau only becomes "who" inasmuch as it's used in the canonical case, and
it's assumed that the speaker too knows the value of makau. This second
assumption does not follow from your above definition of makau, though. "I
know that someone killed Laura" is a legitimate reading of "mi djuno le
du'u makau li'o", regardless of the irrelevant fact that this normally
gets rendered with da, because makau takes whatever values are required
for truth, but the speaker doesn't necessarily know what those values are.
> The controversial bit is what it means to present a bare
> {makau broda} not in a subordinate clause. My take is that
> this {makau} corresponds to English "whatever":
>
> le tanxe cu se skari makau
> The box is whatever colour it is.
>
> Whatever the answer is, I'm not making it explicit (probably
> because it is irrelevant). It is sort of a tautological claim.
This follows correctly from your definition.
--
jipno se kerlo
re mei re mei degji kakne