PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS AN OLD VERSION. The current version is linked from The Complete Lojban Language.
Previous
Predication/sentence abstraction 		Events, Qualities, Quantities, And Other Vague Words: On Lojban Abstraction
The Lojban Reference Grammar 		Next
Minor abstraction types

8. Indirect questions

The following cmavo is discussed in this section:

   kau UI  indirect question marker
There is an alternative type of sentence involving ``du'u'' and a selbri expressing a propositional attitude. In addition to sentences like 
8.1)  I know that John went to the store.
we can also say things like 

8.2)  I know who went to the store.
This form is called an ``indirect question'' in English because the embedded English sentence is a question: ``Who went to the store?'' A person who says Example 8.2 is claiming to know the answer to this question. Indirect questions can occur with many other English verbs as well: I can wonder, or doubt, or see, or hear, as well as know who went to the store.

To express indirect questions in Lojban, we use a ``le du'u'' abstraction, but rather than using a question word like ``who'' (``ma'' in Lojban), we use any word that will fit grammatically and mark it with the suffix particle ``kau''. This cmavo belongs to selma'o UI, so grammatically it can appear anywhere. The simplest Lojban translation of Example 8.2 is therefore:

8.3)  mi djuno le du'u
        makau pu klama le zarci
    I know the predication-of
        X [indirect question] [past] going to the store.
In Example 8.3, we have chosen to use ``ma'' as the word marked by ``kau''. In fact, any other sumti would have done as well: ``zo'e'' or ``da'' or even ``la djan.''. Using ``la djan.'' would suggest that it was John who I knew had gone to the store, however: 
8.4)  mi djuno le du'u
        la djan. kau pu
            klama le zarci
    I know the predication-of/fact-that
        John [indirect question] [past]
            going to the store.
    I know who went to the store, namely John.
    I know that it was John who went to the store.

Using one of the indefinite pro-sumti such as ``ma'', ``zo'e'', or ``da'' does not suggest any particular value.

Why does Lojban require the ``kau'' marker, rather than using ``ma'' as English and Chinese and many other languages do? Because ``ma'' always signals a direct question, and so

8.5)  mi djuno le du'u
        ma pu klama le zarci
    I know the predication-of
        [what sumti?] [past] goes-to the store
means 
8.6)  Who is it that I know goes to the store?
It is actually not necessary to use ``le du'u'' and ``kau'' at all if the indirect question involves a sumti; there is generally a paraphrase of the type: 
8.7)  mi djuno fi le pu klama be le zarci
    I know about the [past] goer to-the store.
    I know something about the one who went to the store
        (namely, his identity).
because the x3 place of ``djuno'' is the subject of knowledge, as opposed to the fact that is known. But when the questioned point is not a sumti, but (say) a logical connection, then there is no good alternative to ``kau'': 
8.8)  mi ba zgana le du'u
        la djan. jikau la djordj.
            cu zvati le panka
    I [future] observe the predication-of/fact-that
        John [connective indirect question] George
            is-at the park.
    I will see whether John or George (or both)
        is at the park.

In addition, Example 8.7 is only a loose paraphrase of Example 8.3, because it is left to the listener's insight to realize that what is known about the goer-to-the-store is his identity rather than some other of his attributes.

Previous
Predication/sentence abstraction 		Events, Qualities, Quantities, And Other Vague Words: On Lojban Abstraction
The Lojban Reference Grammar 		Next
Minor abstraction types