11.8. Indirect questions

The following cmavo is discussed in this section:

kau

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

Example 11.47.

I know that John went to the store.

we can also say things like

Example 11.48.

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 11.48 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 11.48 is therefore:

Example 11.49.

mi	djuno	le	du'u
I	know	the	predication-of

ma	kau	pu	klama	le	zarci
X	[indirect-question]	[past]	going-to	the	store.

In Example 11.49 , 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:

Example 11.50.

mi	djuno	le	du'u
I	know	the	predication-of/fact-that

la	.djan.	kau	pu	klama	le	zarci
that-named	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

Example 11.51.

mi	djuno	le	du'u	ma	pu	klama	le	zarci
I	know	the	predication-of	[what sumti?]	[past]	goes-to	the	store

means

Example 11.52.

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:

Example 11.53.

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 :

Example 11.54.

mi	ba	zgana	le	du'u	la	.djan.
I	[future]	observe	the	predication-of/fact-that	that-named	John

jikau	la	.djordj.	cu	zvati	le	panka
[connective-indirect-question]	that-named	George		is-at	the	park.

I will see whether John or George (or both) is at the park.

In addition, Example 11.53 is only a loose paraphrase of Example 11.49 , 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.