From xod@sixgirls.org Fri May 25 00:21:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 25 May 2001 07:21:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 8289 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 07:21:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 May 2001 07:21:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 May 2001 07:21:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4P7Lil20310 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 03:21:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 03:21:44 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: if, then (was: Lessons) In-Reply-To: <20010524233048.B1498@twcny.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Thu, 24 May 2001, Rob Speer wrote: > Okay, then we're essentially in agreement. ganai...gi and go...gi are > legitimate ways of saying if...then as long as you're not basing it on a > situation that is likely to be untrue. "likely to be untrue?" Do you want your sentence to be able to hold up under both conditions; where the premise is true and where it's not true? Then use va'o. If you think the premise is always true, why cast it as a conditional? ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!