From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Aug 06 15:18:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 6 Aug 2001 22:18:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 75638 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2001 22:17:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta3 with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 22:17:50 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.128]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010806221748.WZKI6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:17:48 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Whatever Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:16:51 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > I think I have discovered what makau means when it appears > in the main clause and not inside a du'u. It means "whatever". > At least in some contexts it does. > > Let's consider first a ju-sentence: > > mi ba te vecnu ta iju ta rupnu makau > I will buy that, whatever it costs. = ro da zo'u gu mi ba te vecnu ta gi ta rupnu da [or should that be se gu?] > In other words, whatever the answer to "how much does that > cost?" is, I will buy it. This works because ju prevents > the second sentence from being a claim. A claim could never > contain makau because nothing would be claimed, or rather, > it becomes a tautology, since obviously the true answer to > the question, whatever it is, has to be true. I'm not convinced that the makau is appropriate in your sentence, on the grounds that it can be rephrased as I have done, whereas not all Q-kau constructions can be thus rephrased. > {xukau} is indeed the tautology marker, so {da'au} is not > necessary. Since ju by itself changes whatever follows into > a tautology, it is not necessary to use xukau there, but it > doesn't hurt either: > > mi ba te vecnu ta i [ju/xukau] ta kargu > I will buy that, whether or not it is expensive. > > {xukau} would be an alternative to {ju}. = ro da (poi ke'a truthvalue) zo'u gu mi ba te vecnu ta gi da jei ta kargu > Other contexts that allow this main clause use of kau are > certain attitudinals: > > ui makau klama le zarci > Happy! Whoever goes to the store. > > Whatever the true answer to "who goes to the store?" is, I'm > happy about it. While trying to formulate a horrified rejection of this, I concluded that (a) it's hunkydory, and (b) it's hard to rephrase. > e'a do lebna makau > Permission! Whatever you take. > > Comments? I take it that the last 2 exx mean also that I am happy that the nongoers are nongoers and that I also permit you not to take the things you don't take. It's these extra meanings that stop ro da zo'u ui/e'a do lebna da from working. --And.