From phma@webjockey.net Sat Feb 09 16:18:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 10 Feb 2002 00:18:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 69403 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2002 00:18:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2002 00:18:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2002 00:18:24 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 672F73C489; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:18:20 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:18:18 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <02020919181805.16980@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13207 On Saturday 09 February 2002 17:03, Jorge Llambias wrote: > But you're approaching this backwards. You say: "{makau broda} > is an indirect question and therefore it only makes sense in > subordinate clauses. I refuse therefore to consider what it might > mean as a free floating clause." I want to say: "We more or less > understand what {makau broda} means as a subordinate clause, but > in Lojban it is also grammatical as a free floating clause. Is > there a possible generlization of the meaning so as to cover this > case, or are we forced to declare it nonsense?" > > How do you say in Lojban "I buy it whatever it costs"? {mi te vecnu ta .iju makau ta jdima} I don't think that a bridi with {makau} in it has a well-defined truth value, so to get a true jufra you have to connect the two bridi with {.iju}, which means that the ill-defined truth value is irrelevant. A bridi with e.g. {la djan. kau}, on the other hand, has a definite truth value, which is the same as it would without {kau}. But I think there are some subtle differences: mi klama le skina .ije la djan. kansa mi I go to the movie, and John goes with me. mi klama le skina .iju la djan. kansa mi I go to the movie whether or not John goes with me. (simple Boolean irrelevance) mi klama le skina .ije la djan. kau kansa mi I go to the movie, and it is John who goes with me. (the listener already knows or infers that someone goes with me) mi klama le skina .iju la djan. kau kansa mi I go to the movie whether or not it is John that goes with me. (implying that someone does) mi klama le skina .iju dakau kansa mi I go to the movie, whoever goes with me. (same as preceding, except for singling out John) mi klama le skina .iju makau kansa mi I go to the movie, whoever might go with me. (no implication that anyone does or that no one does) mi klama le skina .iju xukau la djan. kansa mi I go to the movie, whether or not John goes with me. (implies that either John does or nobody does) phma