Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:12:20

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.