From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Feb 11 07:44:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 11 Feb 2002 15:44:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 95868 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 15:44:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2002 15:44:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 15:44:34 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:18:19 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:44:26 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:44:20 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin My 2c on this, fwiw: 1. I agree with pc that Jorge's main bridi q-kau are not a simple extrapolation of subordinate bridi qkau. Logically, makau is equivalent to ce'u, and other qkau are equivalent to as-yet-uncreated cousins of ce'u. If Jorge can convince me that main clause makau can be replaced by ce'u with the meaning preserved, then I may recognize some logical basis for his usage. 2. That said, kosher qkau in subordinate bridi are already somewhat=20 idiomatic, in that (say) "ma" is, logically, complexly derived from=20 "ma kau", contrary to surface appearances (which give the impression that "ma kau" is, logically, simplexly derived from "ma"). Given that qkau is therefore already somewhat idiomatic and subject to convoluted logical interpretation (in its relationship to bare q words), I don't see any overwhelming logical objection to using qkau in main clauses as per Jorge's usage -- Jorge's usage is semantically messy but useful, and is in a domain that is already semantically=20 messier than one would have liked. 3. However, logically speaking Jorge's main clause qkau could occur in a subordinate bridi (e.g. "[Whetherever]1 John knows _1 Jane went" =3D "Whether John knows Jane went, or John knows Jane did not go"), but this would not work grammatically. For this reason -- the fact that main clause qkau cannot be used in the full range of environments that either logic or the general patterns of lojban grammar would lead us to expect it to have -- I am opposed to Jorge's usage. --And >>> 02/09/02 09:06pm >>> In a message dated 2/9/2002 11:09:53 AM Central Standard Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > I don't remember what you thought of: >=20 > mi ta te vecnu ije makau ta jdima > I buy it, whatever be its price. >=20 I hated it, for all the reasons that I dislike this one -- a free floating= =20 indirect question doesn't make any sense at all and doesn't have a truth=20 value, so can't be atached truth functionally. No -- as I said then -- the second sentence is which is is true of P and ~P= ,=20 neitehr of which is typically a tautology -- that is it is the answer to th= e=20 question (if it has any truth value at all). A tautology is a single sentence which is true regardless. {ta se jdima=20 makau} , if meaningful at all, is always true but is a different sentence o= n=20 different occasions, so not a tautology. "It costs whatever it costs" is=20 just {ta se jdima lo jdima be ta}, which is a tautology. I still suspect a= =20 large number of indirect questions, so called, are relatives or, as here,=20 descriptions. As I said, indirect questions are questions in indirect=20 discourse and make little sense elsewhere -- English to the contrary=20 notwithstanding (in a word, this pursuit looks to be bloated malglicotude)= .