Re: [lojban] tautologies

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

la and cusku di'e

> Currently the distinction between a property/relation
> and a completion of an incomplete proposition is captured by
> "du'u ce'u" vs "du'u makau". So in that sense, ce'u is not
> equivalent to makau. However, the true locus of semantic
> contrast is at the abstractor, so if there were greater
> homomorphism between semantic and lexical structure, the
> distinction should be marked on the "du'u" element,
> supplemented by a way of indicating which ce'u/makau
> are bound by which du'u element.
[...]

> #What am I missing?
>
> 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.

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

Indeed marking the above question with an initial {pau} is good
form in canonical Lojban, though not exactly for the reason we're
discussing here.

> 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...

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.