Re: [lojban] Whatever

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

la pycyn cusku di'e

> > {xukau} is indeed the tautology marker, so {da'au} is not
> > necessary. Since ju by itself changes whatever follows into
> > a tautology, it is not necessary to use xukau there, but it
> > doesn't hurt either:
>
> What a horrible way to put it! Sentences after {ju} make claims; the claims
> they make just have no role to play in the larger sentence.

Yes, I admit I put it rather horribly. I corrected myself at least
partially in the following messages, I hope.

> Nor are
> sentences after {ju} thereby tautologies.  They act like tautolgies in
> conjunctions, to be sure -- but they equally act like contradictions in
> disjunctions.

Could you give an example? I don't understand what the things
that act like contradictions in disjunctions are.

> Nor is {xukau} a tautology marker, though {xukau p} may always
> be true.  But it is, in fact, either p or ~p, neither of which is 
> (generally
> speaking) a tautology.

That sounds funny, because "either p or ~p" is a tautology, but
I think I understand what you mean. Do you think there is some
function that a tautology marker ({da'au} was proposed) could
fulfill and {xukau} couldn't?

> The examples with attitudinals are more plausible, except that we don't
> understand attitudinals very well, so this may be ignotum per ignotius, and
> they seem to be sayable without the indirect questions -- assuming (which I
> do with great reluctance) that I understand what they are meant to mean.

How can we say, for example, what we want to understand by:

       e'a do lebna makau
       Permission! Whatever you take.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




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