From pycyn@aol.com Wed Feb 13 01:31:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 09:31:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 53348 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 09:31:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 09:31:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 09:31:10 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.c6.6783c4f (4068) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 04:29:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 04:29:51 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c6.6783c4f.299b8c0f_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: 13255 --part1_c6.6783c4f.299b8c0f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/12/2002 2:14:06 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: (&:) > >The meaning I was trying to get, is a qkau version of > >"la djan djuno le du'u xu la djein klama". > > Ok, yes, I see what you mean. > > >Let's change it to > >{jinvi} to make things less confusing: > > > >"la djan jinvi le du'u xu pau la djein klama" > > > >This asks whether John believes Jane did go, or whether John > >believes Jane didn't go. It ought to be possible to form a > >main clause whetherever from this, but it isn't. > That is, whichever does John believe about the claim that Jane went. But this is, by definition, a main clause case, a direct question, not an indirect one. I still don't see what is wanted -- a main clause subordinate clause apparently, but that is contradictory. The {pau} is a kindness, but the {kau} doesn't obviously have a parallel function -- and if it does it is to indicate {pau} in indirect usage. I particular, it is not obvious that the initial {kau} affects the {xu} and keeps this from being a direct question (it is admittedly not at all clear what it is wanted to be. As I've said, the relation to questions seems to be merely malglico, lacking any significant argumet for the connection). <>A similar example would be > > "However many people John reckons that I invited, he's still >got no right to issue invitations of his own" >= "Whatever the value of n such that John reckons that I >invited n people, ..." ikau la djan jinvi le du'u xo prenu cu co'e ije dy na lifre...> Ditto and the {je} makes no sense, since the thing before it not obviously a sentence, and, if it is, is a question, so, in neither case does what is wanted. --part1_c6.6783c4f.299b8c0f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/12/2002 2:14:06 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
(&:)
>The meaning I was trying to get, is a qkau version of
>"la djan djuno le du'u xu la djein klama".

Ok, yes, I see what you mean.

>Let's change it to
>{jinvi} to make things less confusing:
>
>"la djan jinvi le du'u xu pau la djein klama"
>
>This asks whether John believes Jane did go, or whether John
>believes Jane didn't go. It ought to be possible to form a
>main clause whetherever from this, but it isn't.

That is, whichever does John believe about the claim that Jane went.  But this is, by definition, a main clause case, a direct question, not an indirect one. I still don't see what is wanted -- a main clause subordinate clause apparently, but that is contradictory.

<You sort of provide the answer above. The question is:

   i pau la djan jinvi le du'u xu la djein klama

The whetherever form is:

   i kau la djan jinvi le du'u xu la djein klama>

The {pau} is a kindness, but the {kau} doesn't obviously have a parallel function -- and if it does it is to indicate {pau} in indirect usage.  I particular, it is not obvious that the initial {kau} affects the {xu} and keeps this from being a direct question  (it is admittedly not at all clear what it is wanted to be.  As I've said, the relation to questions seems to be merely malglico, lacking any significant argumet for the connection).

<>A similar example would be
>
>   "However many people John reckons that I invited, he's still
>got no right to issue invitations of his own"
>= "Whatever the value of n such that John reckons that I
>invited n people, ..."

ikau la djan jinvi le du'u xo prenu cu co'e ije dy na lifre...>

Ditto and the {je} makes no sense, since the thing before it not obviously a sentence, and, if it is, is a question, so, in neither case does what is wanted.


 --part1_c6.6783c4f.299b8c0f_boundary--