Subject: Re: [lojban] Q-kau 2002: halfway towards a solution/resolution

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:34:32

la and cusku di'e

>(A) Ignoring current usage, what would be the best way to express in
>Lojban an incomplete proposition and its unbound variables? My best
>shot would be a du'u clause containing "tu'o da" for unbound variables.

That covers propositions that are incomplete in that they are
missing a sumti, but Q-kau covers a larger range of incomplete
propositions, with xukau, xokau, jikau, mokau, etc.

>The relationship between Q-word with kau and Q-word without kau would
>then be a relatively idiomatic one, in that a sentence with Q-word without
>kau would be an abbreviation of a more complex sentence in which the
>Q-words are with kau. Is this sufficiently 'lojbanic'?

Probably it would have been more lojbanic to use the unmarked
form for the simple incomplete sentence, and use a marked form
(e.g. {mapau}) for the question. But Lojban is not as lojbanic
as it should be...

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com