Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::231;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <550EC85E.7070206@gmail.com>
References: <550EC85E.7070206@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:31:04 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2dftLA+nOV_7SwaK8LPDReAY0MbJnWeN6wunJjKjbaiDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] On the meanings of the causal gismu
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b873dd0aee94f0511f65a16
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -

--047d7b873dd0aee94f0511f65a16
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> =E2=80=94 What is the semantic difference between {selja'e}, {rinka} and =
{bapli}?
> Does {selja'e} express a weaker relation than that expressed by {rinka}?
>

Setting aside the "sumti raising" issue, I would say "rinka" and "selja'e"
are pretty much equivalent. It's hard to think of cases where one works but
not the other.

I think "bapli" is different, because "forcing" requires overcoming some
kind of resistance. One could say "lo nu mi nelci ti cu rinka lo nu mi te
vecnu ti", but using "bapli" there would seem out of place. So I would say
"bapli" is just a special case of "rinka".

=E2=80=94 The notes of {rinka} say it is a material condition; however, a t=
rue
> logical material condition (ganai...gi...) does not express any
> causal/physical relationship (if I'm not mistaken), which seems to
> contradict the main definition of {rinka}. So, does {rinka} entails a
> causal relationship?
>

"rinka" is not material implication. There was probably some confusion
about what "material implication" meant, and someone may have thought that
"material" had something to do with "physical". It's just part of the
general Lojbanic tradition of misusing technical terms.

=E2=80=94 Is {danre} the right word for the physics notion of "force"? If s=
o, what
> {bapli} is all about?
>

"danre" seems more suited to the physics notion of "pressure", at least if
we folow the gloss word. Force is measured in newtons, pressure in pascals,
which is N.m^-2, so it is force applied over an area. "bapli" itself is not
very good for the physics notion of force though, since a force need not
force anything to happen, it may be cancelled by other forces and have no
effect, or it may combine with other forces to have some effect which it
doesn't have on its own. So the physics notion may have to be "bapli be
zi'o". Or maybe some lujvo based on "danre" because its place structure
makes more sense for the physics notion of force, a force applied to
something rather than a force causing something.

=E2=80=94 Which of the three below meanings should {banzu} have? (All of th=
e below
> meanings are used in actual usage, making {banzu} a polysemous predicate.=
)
> 1) That x1 happens is a sufficient condition for x2 to happen.
> 2) The amount x1 (ni) is great enough for x2 to happen.
> 3) The amount of x1 having property x2 is great enough for x3 to happen.
>
> #1 parallels {sarcu} and seems redundant to {rinka}; #2 is the same thing
> as {banzuni} <http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/banzuni>; #3 parallels the
> meaning/usage for {dukse}, and sometimes {banzuka} is used for this meani=
ng.
>

I think "banzu" is supposed to parallel "sarcu", (as in "sarcu je banzu"
for "necessary and sufficient condition"), so I would say primarily #1. I
think #2 may also be covered by this. I think "ni" indicates that there is
an implicit "xo kau", and it can stand for "ka ... xo kau ..." as well as
for "nu ... xo kau ..." or "du'u ... xo kau ..." (which one of them it is
is determined by where it is used, so there is an ambiguity there of some
kind). x1 of ni is an event in this case, since banzu1 forces the "nu ...
xo kau... " interpretation of "ni", but an event with focus on some
quantity so that it is sufficient by virtue of this quantity being great
enough.

"banzu" is not the same as "rinka". ro da zo'u da banzu da .i ku'i na ku ro
da zo'u da rinka da .i la'a no da zo'u da rinka da .i ro da poi kacna'u
zo'u lo du'u da pilji li vo lo kacna'u cu banzu lo du'u da pilji li re lo
kacna'u .i ku'i pe'i lo du'u pilji li vo cu na rinka lo du'u pilji li re

It would also have made sense to have "banzu" be part of the
milxe/mutce/traji/dukse "adverbial" family, with meaning #3, but the
contrast with "sarcu" is also important, so that would have to be "jai
banzu" or "banzuka" I suppose.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--047d7b873dd0aee94f0511f65a16
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Ilmen <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
 =20

   =20
 =20
  <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><br>
    =E2=80=94 What is the semantic difference between {selja&#39;e}, {rinka=
} and
    {bapli}? Does {selja&#39;e} express a weaker relation than that
    expressed by {rinka}?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Setting=
 aside the &quot;sumti raising&quot; issue, I would say &quot;rinka&quot; a=
nd &quot;selja&#39;e&quot; are pretty much equivalent. It&#39;s hard to thi=
nk of cases where one works but not the other.</div><div><br></div><div>I t=
hink &quot;bapli&quot; is different, because &quot;forcing&quot; requires o=
vercoming some kind of resistance. One could say &quot;lo nu mi nelci ti cu=
 rinka lo nu mi te vecnu ti&quot;, but using &quot;bapli&quot; there would =
seem out of place. So I would say &quot;bapli&quot; is just a special case =
of &quot;rinka&quot;.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><d=
iv text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
    =E2=80=94 The notes of {rinka} say it is a material condition; however,=
 a
    true logical material condition (ganai...gi...) does not express any
    causal/physical relationship (if I&#39;m not mistaken), which seems to
    contradict the main definition of {rinka}. So, does {rinka} entails
    a causal relationship?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>&quot;=
rinka&quot; is not material implication. There was probably some confusion =
about what &quot;material implication&quot; meant, and someone may have tho=
ught that &quot;material&quot; had something to do with &quot;physical&quot=
;. It&#39;s just part of the general Lojbanic tradition of misusing technic=
al terms.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div tex=
t=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
    =E2=80=94 Is {danre} the right word for the physics notion of &quot;for=
ce&quot;? If
    so, what {bapli} is all about?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v>&quot;danre&quot; seems more suited to the physics notion of &quot;pressu=
re&quot;, at least if we folow the gloss word. Force is measured in newtons=
, pressure in pascals, which is N.m^-2, so it is force applied over an area=
. &quot;bapli&quot; itself is not very good for the physics notion of force=
 though, since a force need not force anything to happen, it may be cancell=
ed by other forces and have no effect, or it may combine with other forces =
to have some effect which it doesn&#39;t have on its own. So the physics no=
tion may have to be &quot;bapli be zi&#39;o&quot;. Or maybe some lujvo base=
d on &quot;danre&quot; because its place structure makes more sense for the=
 physics notion of force, a force applied to something rather than a force =
causing something.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><=
div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
    =E2=80=94 Which of the three below meanings should {banzu} have? (All o=
f the
    below meanings are used in actual usage, making {banzu} a polysemous
    predicate.)<br>
    1) That x1 happens is a sufficient condition for x2 to happen.<br>
    2) The amount x1 (ni) is great enough for x2 to happen.<br>
    3) The amount of x1 having property x2 is great enough for x3 to
    happen.<br>
    <br>
    #1 parallels {sarcu} and seems redundant to {rinka}; #2 is the same
    thing as <a href=3D"http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/banzuni" target=3D=
"_blank">{banzuni}</a>;
    #3 parallels the meaning/usage for {dukse}, and sometimes {banzuka}
    is used for this meaning.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I t=
hink &quot;banzu&quot; is supposed to parallel &quot;sarcu&quot;, (as in &q=
uot;sarcu je banzu&quot; for &quot;necessary and sufficient condition&quot;=
), so I would say primarily #1. I think #2 may also be covered by this. I t=
hink &quot;ni&quot; indicates that there is an implicit &quot;xo kau&quot;,=
 and it can stand for &quot;ka ... xo kau ...&quot; as well as for &quot;nu=
 ... xo kau ...&quot; or &quot;du&#39;u ... xo kau ...&quot; (which one of =
them it is is determined by where it is used, so there is an ambiguity ther=
e of some kind). x1 of ni is an event in this case, since banzu1 forces the=
 &quot;nu ... xo kau... &quot; interpretation of &quot;ni&quot;, but an eve=
nt with focus on some quantity so that it is sufficient by virtue of this q=
uantity being great enough.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>&quot;banzu&quot=
; is not the same as &quot;rinka&quot;. ro da zo&#39;u da banzu da .i ku=
9;i na ku ro da zo&#39;u da rinka da .i la&#39;a no da zo&#39;u da rinka da=
 .i ro da poi kacna&#39;u zo&#39;u lo du&#39;u da pilji li vo lo kacna&#39;=
u cu banzu lo du&#39;u da pilji li re lo kacna&#39;u .i ku&#39;i pe&#39;i l=
o du&#39;u pilji li vo cu na rinka lo du&#39;u pilji li re</div><div><br></=
div><div>It would also have made sense to have &quot;banzu&quot; be part of=
 the milxe/mutce/traji/dukse &quot;adverbial&quot; family, with meaning #3,=
 but the contrast with &quot;sarcu&quot; is also important, so that would h=
ave to be &quot;jai banzu&quot; or &quot;banzuka&quot; I suppose.</div><div=
><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--047d7b873dd0aee94f0511f65a16--