From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Feb 10 16:18:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 11 Feb 2002 00:18:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 68369 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 00:18:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2002 00:18:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.195) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 00:18:43 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:18:43 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.14 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:18:42 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:18:42 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2002 00:18:43.0087 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9BDB9F0:01C1B291] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.14] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e > But I don't yet see a reason for giving it to this usage, other >than "that is how English (and Spanish?) does it." Please make your case. I don't think English does it quite the same way, and Spanish even less so. >The equivalence (in >more interesting ways -- grammatical transformation to start with) between >{ijenai} and {ije naku} are fundamental to the language. Let's put {da'au} (the proposed tautology operator) in selma'o NA. Why is {ijenai} interestingly equivalent to {ije naku} but {iju} is not interestingly equivalent to {ije da'auku}? It seems to me to be exactly parallel. >of {ta} but changes for {makau}.> > >Remember that {makau} is a cover for whatever happens to be true in the >circumstances. And {ta} is a cover for whatever you happen to be pointing at in the circumstances. >So, if ta costs fifty cents, {ta se jdima makau} is {ta se >jdima -50cents} and if it is a dollar, then it is {- 1 dollar} and so on: And if {ta} is {le ladru}, {ta se jdima makau} is {le ladru cu se jdima makau}, and if it is {le nanba}, then it is {le nanba cu se jdima makau}, and so on. >You may say the same thing, but the sentence you utter changes with the >circumstance for all that, so that it is always the true one. And the same happens to the sentence without {makau}, except it need not always be true. >You have, in >effect said "I declare the true sentence of the base form {ta se jdima >---}." > What you say is always true, but it is a different thing on each >occasion. Yes, the particularity of {kau} sentences is that they are always true, but that they are a different thing on each occasion is not particular to them. >If {makau} accepts the {no da} answer (and it loks as theough you held the >opposite view on this earlier -- not that I think that would commit you >now), No, I think I mostly held that the {noda} answer was acceptable. What we had a row about, if I recall correctly, was the {na'i} answer. >the clearly {ta se jdima no da} is ok, and so {no da} is an acceptable >replacement, if need -- but note it is never needed, for {lo jdima be ta}, >and thus for {da}, if you think that that goes through. This is a feasible >position, but just barely. I prefer saying that some things have a 0 price >and some things an infinite one, both of which cannot be paid. Ok, that's not really the point here. Let's consider an example where the {noda} answer is a real possibility. Forget about prices and consider destinations, or gifts, or whatever. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com