Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::236;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <551074C8.10306@gmail.com>
References: <550EC85E.7070206@gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2dftLA+nOV_7SwaK8LPDReAY0MbJnWeN6wunJjKjbaiDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<551074C8.10306@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:26:05 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2faPDjTKnTLEva6dQsQUC+o1vCdF-Rx+OMt1Rkv+r8nBg@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=047d7bb041024d183d0511fb50c6
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: -

--047d7bb041024d183d0511fb50c6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've always though of {selja'e} as being a somewhat looser / less strict
> relation than {rinka}, as if it was something like {x1 .a lo selpau be x1
> cu rinka x2}, so that one can say {lo nu carvi cu selja'e lo nu mi na
> klama}, where the connection between the two events is not clearly
> explained, and where it seems that "lo nu carvi" is not the only factor
> that have determined the event {lo nu mi klama} not to occur (another
> plausible factor could be "mi na djica lo nu mi se carvi").
> But this impression that {selja'e} is looser than {rinka} is perhaps
> subjective, and maybe {rinka} can be used just as vaguely.
>

Maybe, but the distinction would still be blurry, because giving an
exhaustive description of the full cause of anything is nearly impossible,
so we always really just give the main and most significant factors. lo nu
carvi and lo nu mi na djica lo nu mi se carvi cannot be the full factors
that cause lo nu mi na klama, because under the right circumstances lo nu
mi klama could still happen in spite of those causes, so there's always an
implicit "under conditions" that collects all the things taken for granted.

> "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
>
> But, isn't this second example (that with {kacna'u}) what {nibli} is for?
> I thought that banzu-nu (the version of {banzu} that parallels {sarcu}) was
> the event equivalent of {nibli}.
>

We could also use "nibli" there, but I don't see a problem with "banzu". If
p entails q then p is a sufficient condition for q. But let's discard this
example if you prefer.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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 email 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.

--047d7bb041024d183d0511fb50c6
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 Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Ilmen <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto: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">I&#39;ve always though of {selj=
a&#39;e} as being a somewhat looser / less
    strict relation than {rinka}, as if it was something like {x1 .a lo
    selpau be x1 cu rinka x2}, so that one can say {lo nu carvi cu
    selja&#39;e lo nu mi na klama}, where the connection between the two
    events is not clearly explained, and where it seems that &quot;lo nu
    carvi&quot; is not the only factor that have determined the event {lo n=
u
    mi klama} not to occur (another plausible factor could be &quot;mi na
    djica lo nu mi se carvi&quot;).<br>
    But this impression that {selja&#39;e} is looser than {rinka} is perhap=
s
    subjective, and maybe {rinka} can be used just as vaguely.</div></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>Maybe, but the distinction would still be blurry,=
 because giving an exhaustive description of the full cause of anything is =
nearly impossible, so we always really just give the main and most signific=
ant factors. lo nu carvi and lo nu mi na djica lo nu mi se carvi cannot be =
the full factors that cause lo nu mi na klama, because under the right circ=
umstances lo nu mi klama could still happen in spite of those causes, so th=
ere&#39;s always an implicit &quot;under conditions&quot; that collects all=
 the things taken for granted.</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"><span class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite=
"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d=
iv>&quot;banzu&quot; is not the same as &quot;rinka&quot;. ro da zo&#39;u d=
a banzu
              da .i ku&#39;i na ku ro da zo&#39;u da rinka da .i la&#39;a n=
o 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 kacn=
a&#39;u
              .i ku&#39;i pe&#39;i lo du&#39;u pilji li vo cu na rinka lo d=
u&#39;u pilji
              li re</div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote></span>
    But, isn&#39;t this second example (that with {kacna&#39;u}) what {nibl=
i} is
    for? I thought that banzu-nu (the version of {banzu} that parallels
    {sarcu}) was the event equivalent of {nibli}.<br></div></blockquote><di=
v><br></div><div>We could also use &quot;nibli&quot; there, but I don&#39;t=
 see a problem with &quot;banzu&quot;. If p entails q then p is a sufficien=
t condition for q. But let&#39;s discard this example if you prefer.</div><=
div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></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 />

--047d7bb041024d183d0511fb50c6--