History: indirect indicators

Source of version: 1 (current)

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8116|8116], [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8126|8126], [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8129|8129], [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8133|8133], [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8144|8144], [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8149|8149], [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8151|8151], [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8165|8165], [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8171|8171], [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/8180|8180] la frank na djuno le du'u xukau la meris klama ti "Frank does not know whether Mary is coming." la frank facki le du'u uikau la meris klama ti "Frank finds out that yippee! Mary is coming." la frank jinvi le du'u eikau la meris ti klama "Frank thinks that Mary should come." la frank jdice le du'u eipeikau la meris ti klama "Frank decides whether Mary should come." la frank jinvi le du'u la'akau la meris ti klama "Frank thinks that Mary is probably coming." la frank jinvi le du'u ku'ikau la meris ti klama "Frank thinks that Mary, however, is coming." is there meaning outside of ''du'u''? *Shouldn't be. These are indirect questions, so sets of embedded sentences (or whatever); all such are {du'u}. **But some examples suggest that {kau} merely distinguishes an embedded whatsis from one in the main clause, allowing, along side the example above and the main clause (oddly placed?) version {la frank jinvi le du'u la'a la meris ti klama} "Frank probably thinks Mary is coming", this {la frank jinvi fi le nu la'akau la meris ti klama}, "Frank thinks about Mary's likely coming" *Hosspuckey! The last five examples are illegitimate or, at best, redundant. {kau} is needed only for expressions that can occur in a subordinate clause but act in the main clause. This seems to be only question words (and maybe not all of them)The other possibilities are quantified variables and {ce'u}, but those are dealt with already, the one by prenex forms, the other by subscripting (I think -- though the lambda analogy suggests prenexing too. But {kau} is inadequate for questions, since a marker buried in several layers of {du'u} subordination may function at any layer. John can wonder who Jane believes is the killer or he can wonder that Jane believes she knows who the killer is and Lojban at the moment does not clearly distinguish these if it uses only {kau}. ** Can they be rendered in Lojban even without ''kau''? ---- The first example can be rephrased as ''fy. na djuno tu'a le jei la meris klama ti'' *Well, they mean about the same, but they come from very different bases. this also raises the ugly malglico of knowing someone/thing. Another approach almost the same is ''fy na djuno fi le jei la meris ti klama'' ** The ''tu'a'' avoids the ''malgli'' charge, although the elided abstraction is ''su'u broda kei be lo steci'', or something similar that expresses identity. This, in turn, could be used to avoid most of the ''makau'' cases: ''mi djuno le su'u ce'u klama le zarci kei be lo steci''