From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Aug 07 15:54:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Aug 2001 22:54:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 80976 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2001 22:54:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2001 22:54:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.30) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2001 22:54:50 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:54:50 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.30 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 22:54:50 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.30] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Whatever Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 22:54:50 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2001 22:54:50.0549 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6DE1E50:01C11F93] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >But anyway, assuming that something that costs $0.00 is rupnu >li no, rather than rupnu no da, why would you want your >sentence to cover things that rupnu no da -- i.e. things >that are in some sense priceless. I don't really, that's why I said in this case it wouldn't make that much sense. But in another sentence with the same structure we may want that case covered. Let's say: mi ba te vecnu ta ije do jinvi makau la'e di'u I will buy it, whatever you may think about it. >ro da zo'u, in every possible future in which ta rupnu da, >mi te vecnu ta > >ro da zo'u ro ba'oi tu'o du'u ta rupnu da kei mi te vecnu ta > >This is a much better rendition of the English than my original >paraphrase. I don't know it's that important that it be in the future: mi pu te vecnu ta ije ta pu rupnu makau I bought it, whatever it cost. >It makes it clearer that indirect questions >always seem to involve universal quantifiers having scope over >some sort of operator [WHAT SORT? ANY SORT?] that has scope >over the variable bound by the quantifier. I don't think I really want "I bought it" within the scope of anything, its truth is independent of the rest. The kau-phrase is a tautology, as it stands for the answer to {ta pu rupnu ma}. > > mi ba te vecnu ta ije xokau prenu na nelci ta > > I will buy it, however many people don't like it. > >ro da zo'u, in every possible future in which da is the >cardinality of lo'i ge prenu gi na nelci ta, mi te vecnu ta And this one: mi pu te vecnu ta ije xokau prenu na nelci ta I bought it, however many people didn't like it. (That's "however-many", not "however, many".) >BTW, let me make it clear that I'm not opposed to Q-kau, so long >as our goal is to seek a clear logical definition of it, such >that the logical structure of any Q-kau sentence can be >algorithmically derived. Yes, I'd like to understand it too. We should probably just concentrate on makau, because if xukau and xokau must involve truth values and cardinalities of sets, that's just an unnecessary complication. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp