Re: [lojban] tautologies

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> Well, as a fundamentalist in Lojban, I point out thaat, although {kau} is
> grammatical outside of subordinate clauses, it is meaningless since it is 
> the
> mark of an indirect question and that is its only function.

Ok. I on the other hand prefer to find meaning in any grammatical
sentence whenever I can.

> <Would you agree that {mi ta te vecnu ije da'au
> ta kargu} is equivalent to {mi ta te vecnu iju ta kargu}?>
>
> No. One conjoins the significant sentence with a truth, the other simply
> ignores the second sentence, which might be false. They would be truth
> functionally the same, but not equivalent in any interesting way.

Hmmm... So you can't combine a unary operator with a binary
operator to get another binary operator. Would you say that
binary-unary combination {ije naku} is also not equivalent in
any interesting way to the binary {ijenai}? (They are truth
functionally the same.)

> <{ta se jdima lo jdima be ta} is as much a different sentence on
> different occasions as {ta se jdima makau}.>
>
> Not so. {ta se jdima lo jdima be ta} is always the same sentence, even
> though what the price is changes with circumstances. But {ta se jdima 
> makau}
> is, generalizing from most of the theories about indirect questions, 
> whatever
> of the set of answers to the question happpens to be true: so, as the price
> changes, so does the sentence -- not just the referent, but the expression
> itself.

I don't understand. What gets pronounced is the same in different
occasions, so you don't mean that. The situation described is
different for both in different occasions, so you don't mean that
either. I don't see what it is that remains the same for the case
of {ta} but changes for {makau}.

> <And I don't agree that {ta se jdima lo jdima be ta} means "it costs
> whatever it costs". I think it is equivalent to {ta se jdima da},
> "it costs something", which may be false.>
>
> The only way it can be false is of
> something which has no price, but then "It costs whatever it costs" would 
> be
> false as well, since these things have no cost at all. There are, of 
> course,
> no such things (and I think that is a necessary truth too).

I think that {makau} allows for the {noda} case. If you don't
agree that some things can't have a price, it doesn't matter,
change the predicate. {mi klama makau} does not exclude the
possibility that {mi klama noda}, whereas {mi klama lo se
klama be mi} requires that {mi klama da}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx