From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Tue Aug 14 18:35:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 15 Aug 2001 01:35:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 24811 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2001 01:34:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Aug 2001 01:34:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Aug 2001 01:34:44 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.56]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010815013438.LNUF710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:34:38 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] {lo'i} as a Q-kau solution? Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:33:46 +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) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la xod cusku di'e > > > 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}. That's right. In some ways I prefer it to {ju}, because ju is ge p gi ga q gi na q, and hence seems less basic than the other connectives. {broda ije xu kau brode} is equivalent to (inter alia?) {broda ije da jei brode}. {djuno loi du'u xu kau broda} is equivalent to {da poi ke'a jei broda zo'u djuno loi du'u da jei broda} = loi du'u ce'u jei broda goi ko'a da poi ke'a ko'a ckaji zo'u djuno loi du'u da ko'a ckaji = da poi loi du'u ke'a jei broda goi ko'a jetnu zo'u djuno ko'a = da poi li ni'e jetnu te'u jei ke'a jei broda zo'u djuno loi du'u go'i xi pa --And.