From pycyn@aol.com Mon Feb 11 08:52:32 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 11 Feb 2002 16:52:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 20839 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 16:52:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2002 16:52:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 16:52:31 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.89.1356ae51 (4069) for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:52:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <89.1356ae51.299950c0@aol.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:52:16 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_89.1356ae51.299950c0_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_89.1356ae51.299950c0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/11/2002 9:58:03 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk 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. 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. 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). --part1_89.1356ae51.299950c0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/11/2002 9:58:03 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk 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).


 --part1_89.1356ae51.299950c0_boundary--