From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 08 18:00:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 9 Aug 2001 01:00:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 43682 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2001 01:00:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2001 01:00:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2001 01:00:13 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:00:13 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.46 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 09 Aug 2001 01:00:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.46] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Whatever Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 01:00:12 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2001 01:00:13.0223 (UTC) FILETIME=[A524D370:01C1206E] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > > {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: > >What a horrible way to put it! Sentences after {ju} make claims; the claims >they make just have no role to play in the larger sentence. Yes, I admit I put it rather horribly. I corrected myself at least partially in the following messages, I hope. >Nor are >sentences after {ju} thereby tautologies. They act like tautolgies in >conjunctions, to be sure -- but they equally act like contradictions in >disjunctions. Could you give an example? I don't understand what the things that act like contradictions in disjunctions are. >Nor is {xukau} a tautology marker, though {xukau p} may always >be true. But it is, in fact, either p or ~p, neither of which is >(generally >speaking) a tautology. That sounds funny, because "either p or ~p" is a tautology, but I think I understand what you mean. Do you think there is some function that a tautology marker ({da'au} was proposed) could fulfill and {xukau} couldn't? >The examples with attitudinals are more plausible, except that we don't >understand attitudinals very well, so this may be ignotum per ignotius, and >they seem to be sayable without the indirect questions -- assuming (which I >do with great reluctance) that I understand what they are meant to mean. How can we say, for example, what we want to understand by: e'a do lebna makau Permission! Whatever you take. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp