From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Feb 10 08:12:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 10 Feb 2002 16:12:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 33410 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2002 16:12:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2002 16:12:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.53) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2002 16:12:18 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 08:12:18 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.50 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:12:18 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:12:18 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2002 16:12:18.0471 (UTC) FILETIME=[B65ABB70:01C1B24D] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.50] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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. >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}. >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