[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
So I would take
{.i na vanji fa ledu'u makau catra la lauras}
as meaning
{,i na vajni fa lenu zo'e djuno ledu'u makau catra la lauras}
and thereby I use a type-raising, performative salvator. And if someone
thinks the two mean something different, let them tell me what that is.
The two are not wildly different, but I don't see them as strictly
equivalent either. In any case, I admit I am lost as to what the
point is. It is perfectly sensible to say: {noda djuno le du'u
makau catra la lauras ije na vajni fa le du'u makau catra la
lauras}, "Nobody knows who killed Laura, and it is not important
who killed Laura". In that case, {kau} is not signalling that there
is a knower, no matter how unspecified. Similarly, if I say {mi'a
ca'o jdice le du'u mi ba klama makau}, "we're deciding where to
go", there is no need for there to be a knower, we haven't decided
yet.
And it's because I assume that {kau} always implies {djuno} or
something like that somewhere along the line, that I see Jorge say {.i
makau skari} for "any colour", and I freak.
i makau skari ta => "God knows what colour it is."?
Would that appease your mind? What do you think {i makau skari}
means?
We know that {kau} is defined as something that does indirect
questions. Indirect questions are bound up with {djuno}. I have less
than no problem binding {kau} with {djuno} throughout its usage. Why
the big rush to emancipate it? Why *should* it mean something disjoint
from {djuno}?
I'm not saying it should mean something different, but I don't
see how it connects with {djuno} in many uses that don't
involve {djuno}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail