Date:  Mon, 22 Dec 1997 22:34:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712230334.WAA11462@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 900
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 22 22:34:42 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

And:
>What I am saying is that I don't think you can take all the
>different places where Q-kau is used, contrast them with
>q-kau-less counterparts, and then find some element of meaning
>that Q-kau contributes in every case.

All right, that may be.  But you said that the Q-kau of {frica}
was essentially unlike the Q-kau of epistemic predicates.
That's what I'm not convinced of.

 >> But that's cheating, you're changing the predicate from {toltugni}
>> to {na tugni}. If that's allowed,
>
>It's allowed if toltugni entails na tugni. I think it does.

Yes, I think so too.

 >I think {frica} is {na dunli}, isn't it? Is there a difference?

Ok, but I was trying for a general expansion. If I expand {frica}
in terms of {dunli}, or {toltugni} in terms of {tugni}, then that
doesn't help me to find a general expression for any {broda}.
It may very well be that there isn't one.

co'o mi'e xorxes