TECH: Higley on "kau"

["(Logical Language Group)" <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

                                  kau

    Since I've been out of touch for such a long time, I have no way
of knowing whether this is superfluous or not.  Perhaps the cmavo
"kau" no longer even exists.  Well, I will assume it does, because
otherwise this article just wouldn't be the same!
    I have misplaced whatever issue of JL or whatever attachment it
was that first introduced kau, so I will have to do this one from
memory.  (I would have liked to include some of the examples from that
article.)
    As I understand it, the cmavo "kau" indicates that the value of
that which it "modifies" is known, presumably to the speaker, but
there are instances where this is apparently not the case.  Thus if I
say mi djuno le du'u pakau le prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi ["I know that
one of the people walked on the floor, and I know which one."/"I know
which one of the people walked on the floor."], I am indicating that
the referent of pakau le prenu is known (to me).  Thus kau means
something like "referent known".  And if I just say pakau le prenu pu
dzuli'u le loldi apparently the meaning is the same as when djuno was
the main selbri.  And here's where we run into a problem.  How do we
know to whom the referent is known?  Is kau somehow connected to the
x1 sumti of djuno and any other related gismu?  For if I say la djos
djuno le du'u pakau le prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi, apparently it is to
John (and not to me?) that the referent of pakau le prenu is known.
If kau does not always indicate that it is the speaker who knows the
referent, what is the standard for determining this?  For la djos
djuno le du'u pakau le prenu pu dzuli'u le loldi could mean "John
knows that one of the people walked on the floor, and I know which
one."  But this seems contrary to intuition.  What is the standard?
Is there one?
    In the examples that came with the article on kau, it was used
with words which might be classed as "indefinites" and "inter-
rogatives", and apparently these were used interchangeably.  For our
purposes, an indefinite is a word like zo'e, while an interrogative is
a word such as ma (which, as I'll show, is a close relative of zo'e).
I think it would be useful and advantageous to split the use of kau as
it is used with indefinites and interrogatives.  With interrogatives,
kau could be used to ask a question, while indicating that the speaker
already knows the answer.  Thus a teacher could ask her students, mi
makau zukte makau "What am I doing and to what end?" and her students
would realize that she wasn't just asking this for her (mental)
health.   With indefinites on the other hand (and I class such things
as pa le prenu among them), kau would perform its simple duty of
letting us know that the referent is known.  mi zo'ekau zukte zo'ekau
means something like "I'm doing something-known-to-me for some
purpose-known-to-me."  And thus mi djuno le du'u do du zo'ekau "I know
that you are someone-known-to-me."/"I know who you are." becomes easy.
    Has anyone yet noted the strong relationship between kau and ki'a?
The former indicates that the referent is known, and the latter prenu
and paki'a le prenu, both of which mean "which one of the people" but
in semantically different situations.  Still, the relationship between
them is clear, and perhaps worth exploring further.   Also note that
zo'eki'a is virtually identical -- if not completely identical -- to
ma in meaning.  In fact, it is probably possible to form the whole
range of interrogatives by affixing ki'a to their corresponding
indefinites.  (Japanese, I believe, does something similar.)  I am not
suggesting that this be done.  It would be unnecessarily verbose.  But
it is worth noting the relationship.1
1By the way, what is the indefinite cmavo corresponding to mo, which I
believe was mentioned in that very same article on kau.  I know it's a
CV'V beginning with c.