From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Feb 13 05:27:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 13:27:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 52313 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 13:27:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 13:27:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 13:27:38 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:01:18 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:27:29 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:27:14 +0000 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: #jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: #(&:) #> >The meaning I was trying to get, is a qkau version of #> >"la djan djuno le du'u xu la djein klama". #>=20 #> Ok, yes, I see what you mean. #>=20 #> >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. #=20 #That is, whichever does John believe about the claim that Jane went. But= =20 #this is, by definition, a main clause case, a direct question, not an=20 #indirect one. I still don't see what is wanted -- a main clause subordinat= e=20 #clause apparently, but that is contradictory. What is wanted is the lojban version of the English conditional wh-ever construction. In this instance, "Whichever truth value John believe the proposition that Jane went has, ...". I raised such an example as an illustration of how Jorge's proposed methods for rendering wh-ever fail to generalize sufficiently for them to be satisfactory. # # #The {pau} is a kindness, but the {kau} doesn't obviously have a parallel=20 #function -- and if it does it is to indicate {pau} in indirect usage. I=20 #particular, it is not obvious that the initial {kau} affects the {xu} and= =20 #keeps this from being a direct question=20=20 It read Jorge as implicitly proposing a new usage -- a new rule for how to construe "i kau ... ma". #(it is admittedly not at all clear what it is wanted to be. As I've said,= the=20 #relation to questions seems to be merely malglico, lacking any significant= =20 #argumet for the connection). I don't think this is attributable to malglico. Jorge's reasoning was=20 approximately thus: 1. "du'u ma kau broda" =3D "is a completion of the incomplete propostion 'ma kau broda' =3D 'x broda', where x is unbound". 2 So what might main clause "ma kau broda" mean? That any=20 completion of the incomplete proposition is true? 3. If so, that turns out to be a good way of rendering English conditional wh-ever constructions. I disagreed with step 2 on logical grounds and with step 3 on more practical grounds. But all the same, Jorge is not simply assuming that any interrogativoid construction in English must correspond to an interrogativoid construction in Lojban, or vice versa. #>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" #>=3D "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...> # #Ditto and the {je} makes no sense, since the thing before it not obviously= a=20 #sentence, and, if it is, is a question, so, in neither case does what is=20 #wanted. Since "ikau" has no other meaning, Jorge is proposing that it should be declared to have this meaning where it 'binds' a q-word. I think this is a problematic proposal, but it's going to look like nonsens= e to you if you don't realize it's a novel rule of interpretation. --And