From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Feb 11 15:01:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 11 Feb 2002 23:01:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 7956 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 23:01:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Feb 2002 23:01:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.223) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 23:01:58 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:01:58 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.51 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:01:58 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:01:58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2002 23:01:58.0631 (UTC) FILETIME=[1BAF3F70:01C1B350] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.51] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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