From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 06 17:06:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Aug 2001 00:06:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 81613 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2001 00:06:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2001 00:06:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.91) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2001 00:06:26 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:06:23 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.55 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:06:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.55] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Whatever Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:06:23 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2001 00:06:23.0603 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB506C30:01C11ED4] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9271 la and cusku di'e > > mi ba te vecnu ta iju ta rupnu makau > > I will buy that, whatever it costs. > >= ro da zo'u gu mi ba te vecnu ta gi ta rupnu da Yes, ok, except it doesn't cover {ta rupnu noda}, but then I guess I couldn't buy it anyway... In fact, I realized later that my version should have had {je} instead of {ju}. {ju} = {je xukau}, so I have too many kau's. >I'm not convinced that the makau is appropriate in your >sentence, on the grounds that it can be rephrased as I have >done, whereas not all Q-kau constructions can be thus rephrased. (Except for the noda answer.) How about this one: mi ba te vecnu ta ije xokau prenu na nelci ta I will buy it, however many people don't like it. > > mi ba te vecnu ta i [ju/xukau] ta kargu > > I will buy that, whether or not it is expensive. > > > > {xukau} would be an alternative to {ju}. > >= ro da (poi ke'a truthvalue) zo'u > gu mi ba te vecnu ta gi da jei ta kargu Quantifying over truth values is pretty horrible, so you get only half points for that one. But this can be done for the djuno case too: {mi djuno le du'u xukau ta kargu} -> {su'o da zo'u mi djuno le du'u da jei ta kargu}. We can't have {ro} there. That suggests: su'o da zo'u ge mi ba te vecnu ta gi da jei ta kargu Interesting. ro da ...ju da... su'o da ...je da... > > ui makau klama le zarci > > Happy! Whoever goes to the store. > > > e'a do lebna makau > > Permission! Whatever you take. > >I take it that the last 2 exx mean also that I am happy that the >nongoers are nongoers and that I also permit you not to take the >things you don't take. In general, yes. In context, the relevant answer might exclude noda. >It's these extra meanings that stop > > ro da zo'u ui/e'a do lebna da > >from working. Does that mean that I feel happy/give permission N times, once for every da? That'd be exhausting. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp