Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> I'm not sure whether we are arguing in circles here.
> These two could be true at the same time:
> (1)     ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama
> (2)     ko'a djuno le du'u da klama
> Also, these two could be true at the same time:
> (1)     ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama
> (3)     ko'a djuno le du'u noda klama
> Also, these two could be true at the same time:
> (1)     ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama
> (4)     ko'a djuno le du'u ko'e klama
> This does not mean that they are synonymous, it only means that
> they are compatible. (4) implies (1), (3) implies (1), (2)
> implies (1), (4) implies (2). But none is equivalent to (1).

If we differ, it is in that I think (4) entails (2). If I
say (1), I am only claiming that koha knows some true replacement
for {makau}. For (1) to be true, this true replacement
must be {no da} or something that entails {da}. For (1) to be
false, koha musn't know the true replacement is {no da} or
something that entails {da}. I therefore conclude that truth-
conditionally, {makau} is equivalent to {xukau}.

> > > > That is, to claim {koha djuno le duhu makau klama} is merely
> > > > to claim "She knows whether there is someone that came". It
> > > > seems the same as {koha djuno le duhu xukau da klama}.
> > > Perhaps, but {ko'a djuno le du'u makau klama} strongly suggests
> > > (without reaching the point of claiming) that she knows a useful
> > > answer to the question, just as {ma klama} pragmatically asks for
> > > a useful answer, even though in principle anything that makes
> > > the sentence true is acceptable. (What is useful and how useful
> > > it is depends, of course, on context.)
> > I'll go along with this. Two interesting things have emerged from
> > our discussion of Q-kau: (1) there are alternative locutions of form
> > {da zohu ... le duhu ... da};
> Alternative locutions that make different claims yes. Otherwise, to
> make the same claim, your {da} has to be a {da poi sumti}, and then
> a {la'e da} inside the du'u.

There are alternative locutions for making different claims, i.e.
claims equivalent to English indirect interrogatives. There are
also alternative locutions for making the same claim: this would
be:

(5)  da zohu koha djuno le duhu da is-truth-value be le duhu broda

which is truth-conditionally equivalent to all Q-kau, I think.

> > (2) the truth-conditional meaning
> > of Q-kau is not what we (or at least I) had originally thought
> > it to be.
> That's true. Originally, I hadn't realized that (2) must imply (1)
> to be consistent with the use of direct questions. (But (1) does
> not imply (2), so they are not equivalent.)

That's right. (1) implies (in the sense "entails") (6).

(6) Koha djuno le duhu da klama I jo nai koha djuno le duhu no da klama

where all tenses etc. of each klama bridi are the same. So (1) is
equivalent to (6), and hence to {koha djuno le duhu xukau da klama},
and hence to (5). [Where 'equivalent' = 'truth-conditionally
equivalent' & not, of course, 'pragmatically equivalent'. Obviously
if someone says {makau} rather than {xukau} then the hearer will
presume there is some communicative purpose in the speaker's doing so.]

----
And