From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Feb 11 19:05:07 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 03:05:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 69021 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 03:05:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 03:05:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-4.cais.net) (205.252.14.74) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 03:05:06 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (209-8-89-107.dynamic.cais.com [209.8.89.107]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g1C352F80934 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 22:05:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020211045838.04e1f370@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 05:02:23 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies In-Reply-To: <12d.c3b81d0.2997da80@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 09:15 AM 2/10/02 -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 2/9/2002 4:04:37 PM Central Standard Time, >jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: >>But you're approaching this backwards. You say: "{makau broda} >>is an indirect question and therefore it only makes sense in >>subordinate clauses. I refuse therefore to consider what it might >>mean as a free floating clause." I want to say: "We more or less >>understand what {makau broda} means as a subordinate clause, but >>in Lojban it is also grammatical as a free floating clause. Is >>there a possible generlization of the meaning so as to cover this >>case, or are we forced to declare it nonsense?" > >Well, as a fundamentalist in Lojban, I point out thaat, although {kau} is >grammatical outside of subordinate clauses, it is meaningless since it is >the mark of an indirect question and that is its only function. Alos, of >course, we do not know enough about how indirect questions work (there are >at least three theories on that, none of them definitive nor more than >plausibly false) to suggest a reasonable generalization to illicit >cases. And also there is the question of whether following English habits >here will give the clearest and most useful solution to presently >perceived problems or whether another approach is better. None of this >says that what you are doing is wrong, necessarily, but it is clearly >unjustified at the moment. I think that if there are (at least) 3 theories of indirect questions which are consistent with Lojban semantics for kau in subordinate clauses, we would have to examine what each theory would imply about non-subordinate indirect questions were they to exist. Perhaps they would all lead to similar enough conclusions that Spanglish interpretation is acceptable (or at least a subset/component of what is an acceptable interpretation). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org