>>1016

I think "ma kau" in a non-subordinate clause corresponds more or less to "whatever" in English:

za'a ko'a citka ma kau
"Aha! she's eating whatever she's eating."

I'm a little unclear on what indirect questions are. (I'm pretty sure they aren't questions.)

Is "mi zgana lo nu ko'a citka ma kau" equivalent to "mi zgana lo nu ko'a citka ce'u"? Are either of those equivalent to "mi zgana su'o da poi ko'a citka ke'a"?

>>1016

Maybe {ko'a citka zo'e za'a} is better? That way you put the focus on citka2 without messing with {kau}.

>>1024

> I'm a little unclear on what indirect questions are.

For example, "what indirect questions are" in your sentence is an indirect question. In Lojban it would be something like:

mi na birti lo du'u ma kau nalsirji preti

"ce'u" is different from "ma kau". "ce'u" can usually be translated as "they" in English, whereas "ma kau" is usually "what". Here is an example that uses both:

ti zmadu ta lo ka ce'u citka ma kau
"This one exceeds that one in what they eat."

>>1028

> Maybe {ko'a citka zo'e za'a} is better?

Hmm, that doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the cases in which the speaker has/hasn't identified the actual referent of "zo'e". It can be either
"Aha! She's eating something."
or
"Aha! She's eating that (which I know what it is)."

>>1033

Actually, I think "zo'e za'a" does work:

"Aha! She's eating it (the obvious thing from context)."

"zo'e" is used for something that is either obvious or irrelevant, but if it were irrelevant there would be no point in focusing on it with "za'a", so that leaves the obvious.

For an indefinite "something" one would use "da", not "zo'e".

So, if I understand this correctly, "mi zgana lo nu ko'a citka ma kau" means "mi zgana zo'e po'u lo nu ko'a citka ke'a"? And "mi na birti lo du'u ma kau nalsirji preti" means "mi na birti zo'e po'u lo du'u ke'a nalsirji preti"?

Then is "ti zmadu ta lo ka ce'u citka ma kau" not "ti zmadu ta zo'e po'u lo ka ce'u citka ke'a"? That doesn't make any sense to me.

>>1056

> So, if I understand this correctly, "mi zgana lo nu ko'a citka ma kau" means "mi zgana zo'e po'u lo nu ko'a citka ke'a"?

That's not a standard use of "ke'a". What is its antecedent? "ke'a" is used with cmavo of selma'o NOI.

> And "mi na birti lo du'u ma kau nalsirji preti" means "mi na birti zo'e po'u lo du'u ke'a nalsirji preti"?

Same.

>>1058

ke'a is the relative pronoun. Its referent is always the sumti the relative clause is attached to.

"zo'e po'u lo nu ko'a citka ke'a" may be an incorrect use of po'u. I don't mean "something which is an event of her eating it (the event)". I'm just trying to figure out how to say "something, where there was an event of her eating it". Maybe with pe instead of po'u.

My point was, I'm trying to work out some rules for deciding what kau and ce'u mean without creating logical inconsistencies, and I haven't succeeded yet. kau seems to transform a sumti formed from an abstraction into a sumti formed from the thing kau marks, but the exact details of the transformation are unclear to me. When I say "mi zgana lo nu ko'a citka ma kau", am I observing an event, or a thing which happens to be involved in an event? And when I say "mi na birti lo du'u ma kau nalsirji preti", am I not certain of a fact, or of a thing which happens to be involved in a fact?

>>1065

"makau" puts the focus on one of the arguments of the bridi inside the abstraction, without giving its value, but it doesn't transform the abstraction into anything else.

"kau" can be used with any other question, not just "ma", so the focus need not be put on an argument:

mi zgana lo nu xukau ko'a citka
"I observed whether she was eating."

mi zgana lo nu ko'a citka xokau plise
"I observed how many apples she ate."

> When I say "mi zgana lo nu ko'a citka ma kau", am I observing an event, or a thing which happens to be involved in an event?

An event.

> And when I say "mi na birti lo du'u ma kau nalsirji preti", am I not certain of a fact, or of a thing which happens to be involved in a fact?

A fact.

BTW, a better translation would have been: "mi na birti lo du'u lo nalsirji preti cu mokau", because the direct question would have been "lo nalsirji preti cu mo" rather than "ma nalsirji preti".

>>1065

I've been reading up, and I got my terminology wrong. ke'a is a resumptive pronoun.

Who went to the store?
"Who" is an interrogative.
Lojban: ma pu klama le zarci

I like the man that went to the store.
"that" is a complementizer: it introduces a relative clause but provides no information about the relationship to the antecedent.
Lojban: mi nelci le nanmu poi pu klama le zarci

I like the man who went to the store.
"who" is a relative pronoun, which introduces a relative clause in which the antecedent is the subject. Some languages do not use the same words for interrogatives and relative pronouns, and relative pronouns are not common outside of European languages.
Lojban: no relative pronouns

I like the man that he went to the store.
"that" is a complementizer and "he" is a resumptive pronoun (quite a few languages do this instead of leaving a gap like English does).
Lojban: mi nelci le nanmu poi ke'a pu klama le zarci
In theory, you could say something like "mi nelci le nanmu poi ke'a e lo ke'a speni pu klama le zarci", "I like the man who he and his wife went to the market."

I know who went to the store.
"who" is a relative pronoun again, but the relative clause has no antecedent and instead acts as a noun clause.
Lojban: mi djuno lo du'u ma kau pu klama le zarci

You could also say "I know he went to the store." (as opposed to someone else) as "mi djuno lo du'u ko'a kau pu klama le zarci", or "I know he went to the store" as "mi djuno lo du'u ko'a pu kau klama le zarci". So "indirect question" is a really lousy name for "kau". Maybe "sentential focus marker", "selju'a cmavo".

So, I think "ko'a citka ma kau" would translate to "Who she eats.", so "za'a ko'a citka ma kau" would mean "I observe the identity of the one she eats.", as opposed to "ko'a citka zo'e za'a", "I observe the one she eats.".

"mi zgana lo nu ko'a citka ma kau" would be better as "mi zgana lo du'u ko'a citka ma kau", "I observe a fact of who she eats.", rather than "I observe an event of who she eats."

Now I just have to figure out ce'u.

>>1087

> So, I think "ko'a citka ma kau" would translate to "Who she eats."

I guess you meant "what she eats"?

> so "za'a ko'a citka ma kau" would mean "I observe the identity of the one she eats.",

... in which "observe" is the verb. But "za'a" is not a selbri. And "ko'a citka ma kau" is a bridi, while "the identity of the one she eats" is not a predicate.

> as opposed to "ko'a citka zo'e za'a", "I observe the one she eats.".

Maybe more like "She eats something (aha).". "I observe the one she eats." would be "mi zgana tu'a da poi ko'a citka (ke'a)".

> I guess you meant "what she eats"?

Yes. I mixed it up with another example I was thinking of.

> ... in which "observe" is the verb. But "za'a" is not a selbri. And "ko'a citka ma kau" is a bridi, while "the identity of the one she eats" is not a predicate.

First, evidentials like za'a turn the modified bridi into a claim about how the speaker came to know the information. English doesn't have evidentials, so I had to use "I observe X" to translate za'a.

Second, I could have written it "I observe what she eats.", but I was afraid people would read that "I observe the thing, which she eats.", so I chose to make the meaning of my translation more explicit while sacrificing structural similarity to the Lojban.

> Maybe more like "She eats something (aha)."

"(aha)" doesn't mean anything to me. Another translation might be "I observe something eaten/being eaten by her.", where the change in order of the arguments in English changes the focus.

> mi zgana tu'a da poi ko'a citka (ke'a)

zgana allows physical objects in x2, so you don't need tu'a.

>>1095

>> Maybe more like "She eats something (aha)."
> "(aha)" doesn't mean anything to me. Another translation might be "I observe something eaten/being eaten by her.", where the change in order of the arguments in English changes the focus.

It's not only the order of the arguments that you are changing; you are changing the predicate itself too. I understand that "za'a" as an evidential modifies the sense of the bridi in a certain way, but not to the point where the significance of the original main selbri diminishes. I think there still are better ways to translate the Lojban evidentials into English than completely altering the original predicate/selbri. How about simply "She eats something, I observe"? It has more reversibility to the original "ko'a citka zo'e za'a" than "I observe the one she eats." or "I observe something eaten/being eaten by her.".

>>1105

> I understand that "za'a" as an evidential modifies the sense of the bridi in a certain way, but not to the point where the significance of the original main selbri diminishes.

I disagree. I think using an evidential effectively puts the main bridi into an abstraction, so that the claim is now about the evidential, rather than the bridi. See the paragraph beginning "A bridi with an evidential in it becomes ``indisputable''" in http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c13/s11.html