From pycyn@aol.com Mon Feb 11 06:24:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 11 Feb 2002 14:24:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 55266 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 14:24:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2002 14:24:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m06.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.161) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 14:24:20 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.3c.191e3d22 (4230) for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:24:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3c.191e3d22.29992e0c@aol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:24:12 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3c.191e3d22.29992e0c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13218 --part1_3c.191e3d22.29992e0c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/10/2002 6:19:06 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >You may say the same thing, but the sentence you utter changes with the > >circumstance for all that, so that it is always the true one. Why did I ever assert/agree to this? Unless this is a new feature of free-floating indirect questions, it is not a feature of regular ones. The "always true" part is peculiar to the favorite usage, after {djuno}, and is a result of the conditions on {djuno}, not on indirect questions: consider the same after {krici} or {jinvi} or {senpi}. So what we get is some selection from/all of the set of answers. Presumably only one, but we have no indication of that, nor of which one it is. Otherwise, of course, it is not a claim at all and so not joinable by a connective (the nature of an indirect question alone is obscure, since it is defined only after {du'u}). What about whatever is the subjunctive of {ro da zo'u ganai da jdima ta gi mi vecnu ta fo da}? {ro da zo'u vau lenu da jdima ta kei mi vecnu ta fo da}? --part1_3c.191e3d22.29992e0c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/10/2002 6:19:06 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


>You may say the same thing, but the sentence you utter changes with the
>circumstance for all that, so that it is always the true one.


Why did I ever assert/agree to this?  Unless this is a new feature of free-floating indirect questions, it is not a feature of regular ones.  The "always true" part is peculiar to the favorite usage, after {djuno}, and is a result of the conditions on {djuno}, not on indirect questions: consider the same after {krici} or {jinvi} or {senpi}.  So what we get is some selection from/all of the set of answers.  Presumably only one, but we have no indication of that, nor of which one it is. Otherwise, of course, it is not a claim at all and so not joinable by a connective (the nature of an indirect question alone is obscure, since it is defined only after {du'u}).
What about whatever is the subjunctive of {ro da zo'u ganai da jdima ta gi mi vecnu ta fo da}?  {ro da zo'u vau lenu da jdima ta kei mi vecnu ta fo da}? --part1_3c.191e3d22.29992e0c_boundary--