Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:52:16 EST

In a message dated 2/11/2002 9:58:03 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> #And I don't agree that {ta se jdima lo jdima be ta} means "it costs
> #whatever it costs". I think it is equivalent to {ta se jdima da},
> #"it costs something", which may be false.
> 
> How about {ta se jdima ro jdima be ta}?
> 

Oh Lord! Let's not get started on that again! The last note I have is Cowan 
saying that {ro broda cu brode} entails {su'o broda cu brode}, but I have 
plenty where he -- and countless others -- have said the opposite, expanding 
this as a conditional. So I will stay away from that version until we have a 
ruling again ut nunc.

<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.>

Well, I am not sure that {makau} and {ce'u} are equivalent; I think that 
there are at least scoping differences between them, if not more. But I 
welcome the support for questioning xorxes' usage.

<That said, kosher qkau in subordinate bridi are already somewhat 
idiomatic, in that (say) "ma" is, logically, complexly derived from 
"ma kau", contrary to surface appearances (which give the
impression that "ma kau" is, logically, simplexly derived from "ma").>

And, of course, I am not sure about this derivation; it seem perfectly 
possible that the surface structure is essentially correct -- with the 
details obscure in either case. That is, that main clause {qkau} is just {q} 
(in fact, this on either interpretation).