Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:01:58

la and cusku di'e

>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.

I agree {ce'u} is somewhat related to {makau}, but I wouldn't say
they are equivalent. See below for some more on this.

>2. 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").

I think there is a way to fix this, or at least to make it a little
more palatable. We have four types of "incomplete bridi" in Lojban,
corresponding to ma, makau, ce'u and ke'a. But none of them is really
a pure incomplete bridi, each of them carries some additional baggage
as to how the bridi is to be completed. Let's imagine that in ancient
times {ma} was the way to mark a pure incomplete bridi, and to ask a
question you had to use {mapau} (which you can still do today, of
course). Now, since pure incomplete bridi have no use on their own,
the unmarked form {ma} started to be used with the meaning of {mapau},
first as slang but eventually in mainstream usage as well. That's
why now it looks on the surface as if {makau} is a derivative of the
question {makau}, but in fact they are both, {makau} and {ma[pau]},
derivatives of the pure original {ma}. The same works for all the
other "question" words, which are not really questions but just
marks of incompleteness. Careful or very pedant speakers still say
{xupau}, {xopau}, etc. to ask questions.

{ce'u} and {ke'a} in the ancient days were {maceu'u} and {make'au},
but these forms ended up as simple KOhA because nobody used them
with other selma'o, nobody knew what to do with xuceu'u, xoke'au,
and so on.

>3. However, logically speaking Jorge's main clause qkau could occur
>in a subordinate bridi (e.g. "[Whetherever]1 John knows _1 Jane
>went" = "Whether John knows Jane went, or John knows Jane did
>not go"), but this would not work grammatically.

I'm not sure I understand. Why can't we distinguish:

1- la djan djuno le du'u xukau la djein klama
John knows whether Jane went.

2- xukau la djan djuno le du'u la djein klama
Whetherever John knows that Jane went.

3- xukau la djan djuno le du'u xukau la djein klama
Whetherever John knows whether Jane went.

What am I missing?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com