From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Feb 12 12:12:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 12 Feb 2002 20:12:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 85725 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2002 20:12:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Feb 2002 20:12:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.160) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2002 20:12:21 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 12:12:21 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:12:20 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:12:20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2002 20:12:21.0275 (UTC) FILETIME=[93EBB6B0:01C1B401] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e >Currently the distinction between a property/relation >and a completion of an incomplete proposition is captured by >"du'u ce'u" vs "du'u makau". So in that sense, ce'u is not >equivalent to makau. However, the true locus of semantic >contrast is at the abstractor, so if there were greater >homomorphism between semantic and lexical structure, the >distinction should be marked on the "du'u" element, >supplemented by a way of indicating which ce'u/makau >are bound by which du'u element. [...] >#What am I missing? > >The meaning I was trying to get, is a qkau version of >"la djan djuno le du'u xu la djein klama". Ok, yes, I see what you mean. >Let's change it to >{jinvi} to make things less confusing: > >"la djan jinvi le du'u xu pau la djein klama" > >This asks whether John believes Jane did go, or whether John >believes Jane didn't go. It ought to be possible to form a >main clause whetherever from this, but it isn't. You sort of provide the answer above. The question is: i pau la djan jinvi le du'u xu la djein klama The whetherever form is: i kau la djan jinvi le du'u xu la djein klama Indeed marking the above question with an initial {pau} is good form in canonical Lojban, though not exactly for the reason we're discussing here. >A similar example would be > > "However many people John reckons that I invited, he's still >got no right to issue invitations of his own" >= "Whatever the value of n such that John reckons that I >invited n people, ..." ikau la djan jinvi le du'u xo prenu cu co'e ije dy na lifre... mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.