[YG Conlang Archives] > [jbosnu group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:25:00AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>
> la camgusmis cusku di'e
>
> >Nothing's wrong with the straightforward way, but the point of indirect
> >questions is to produce a sentence structure in which a question is
> >embedded, and the english translation of 8.8 in the book had no such
> >structure.
>
> But it does! The embedded question is precisely "Is John or George
> at the park?" Just as in Lojban.
But the translation of 8.8 does not contain that sentence. An indirect
question must contain the _literal_words_ of a question.
> >Whether you consider this pointful or not is a different issue, but I
> >like them in lojban for subtlety and emphasis, because you can put
> >kau after anything, thus effectively answering your own question in a
> >nice little sarcastic touch.
>
> {paunai} is useful for rhetorical questions. Indirect questions
> are not the same thing.
True, but they can be used similarily. The difference is one of
emphasis, IMO.
-Robin
--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/