From pycyn@aol.com Mon Feb 11 08:33:15 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 11 Feb 2002 16:33:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 76406 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 16:33:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2002 16:33:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 16:33:13 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.35.21f8380b (26119) for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:33:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <35.21f8380b.29994c3f@aol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:33:03 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_35.21f8380b.29994c3f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_35.21f8380b.29994c3f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/9/2002 11:09:53 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > I don't remember what you thought of: > > mi ta te vecnu ije makau ta jdima > I buy it, whatever be its price. > > Which naturally leads to: > > mi ta te vecnu ije xukau ta kargu > I buy it, whetherever it be expensive. > > You might want to add some kind of causality connector instead > of a simple {ije}, but the second sentence is still a tautology. > On about fifth thought, {xukau} in a separate sentence seems to have to mean "some monadic truth function of {ta kargu} holds" which is a tautology, since the {kau} allow the negative forms, and the earlier {makau} is then equivalent to {da a no da} and so also a tautology. But now this does not say quite, "I will buy it whatever it costs / whetherever it is expensive;" it just says "I will buy it." ("and it either costs something / is expensive or not"). The first is pretty much guaranteed by {vecnu4}. I do think you need some kind of causal -- "despite" would be nice, but I don't know if anything quite does that (though I recall going round on it once, or something close to it -- ahah! {ki'unai} looks about right). But that would only work if the price were extreme; if it were not, that would be a good reason to buy: {ki'u}, instead. Maybe this is {va'o} (I will spell it right eventually, I promise) again, though getting {kau} in a {nu} seems almost as suspect as having it run free. And does a tautological condition say anything at all? And, of course, is the resultant sentence true? Is there no condition involving price under which I would not buy it? Sounds like hyperbole to me -- but Lojban has to do hyperbole, too (but mark it?). --part1_35.21f8380b.29994c3f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/9/2002 11:09:53 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


I don't remember what you thought of:

   mi ta te vecnu ije makau ta jdima
   I buy it, whatever be its price.

Which naturally leads to:

   mi ta te vecnu ije xukau ta kargu
   I buy it, whetherever it be expensive.

You might want to add some kind of causality connector instead
of a simple {ije}, but the second sentence is still a tautology.


On about fifth thought, {xukau} in a separate sentence seems to have to mean "some monadic truth function of {ta kargu} holds" which is a tautology, since the {kau} allow the negative forms, and the earlier {makau} is then equivalent to {da a no da} and so also a tautology.  But now this does not say quite,  "I will buy it whatever it costs / whetherever it is expensive;"  it just says "I will buy it."  ("and it either costs something / is expensive or not"). The first is pretty much guaranteed by {vecnu4}.
I do think you need some kind of causal -- "despite" would be nice, but I don't know if anything quite does that (though I recall going round on it once, or something close to it -- ahah! {ki'unai} looks about right).  But that would only work if the price were extreme; if it were not, that would be a good reason to buy: {ki'u}, instead.  Maybe this is {va'o} (I will spell it right eventually, I promise) again, though getting {kau} in a {nu} seems almost as suspect as having it run free. And does a tautological condition say anything at all?  And, of course, is the resultant sentence true?  Is there no condition involving price under which I would not buy it?  Sounds like hyperbole to me -- but Lojban has to do hyperbole, too (but mark it?). --part1_35.21f8380b.29994c3f_boundary--