From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 11:46:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 18:46:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 35803 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 18:44:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 18:44:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.129) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 18:44:43 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:44:43 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:44:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:44:42 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2001 18:44:43.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[042ACC50:01C12428] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >Jorge insists that one can't djuno >anything but le du'u, even if that sumti by its formulation and in >context of djuno really implies a fully-qualified du'u. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't have any problem with something like {mi djuno le se xusra be do}, because {le se xusra be do} is a du'u. But a set is not (nor implies?) a fully-qualified du'u as far as I understand. > > As for main-bridi Q-kau (Q-ever kau), I would now like to > > concede to Jorge that these are genuine Q-kau constructions, > > but (I think) all Q-kau reduce to {xu kau}, and AFAICS > > (myopically) {xu kau} = "whether or not" = U-connective. > >Do you mean xukau = jikau? I think he is agreeing with me that {ju} = {je xukau}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp