Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::232;
Message-ID: <551189FC.20706@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:59:56 +0100
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] On the meanings of the causal gismu
References: <550EC85E.7070206@gmail.com>	<CAO7tK2dftLA+nOV_7SwaK8LPDReAY0MbJnWeN6wunJjKjbaiDw@mail.gmail.com>	<551074C8.10306@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2faPDjTKnTLEva6dQsQUC+o1vCdF-Rx+OMt1Rkv+r8nBg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2faPDjTKnTLEva6dQsQUC+o1vCdF-Rx+OMt1Rkv+r8nBg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------020606050700050207040008"
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: -

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020606050700050207040008
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 23/03/2015 22:26, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com=20
> <mailto: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=20
> exhaustive description of the full cause of anything is nearly=20
> impossible, so we always really just give the main and most=20
> significant factors. lo nu carvi and lo nu mi na djica lo nu mi se=20
> carvi cannot be the full factors that cause lo nu mi na klama, because=20
> under the right circumstances lo nu mi klama could still happen in=20
> spite of those causes, so there's always an implicit "under=20
> conditions" that collects all the things taken for granted.
.i'a
>
>>     "banzu" is not the same as "rinka".  .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=20
> "banzu". If p entails q then p is a sufficient condition for q. But=20
> let's discard this example if you prefer.
>
Also, if { ro da zo'u da banzu da .i ku'i na ku ro da zo'u da rinka da=20
.i la'a no da zo'u da rinka da }, then is {banzu} a causal relation? If=20
causal relations have to do with temporal sequences of events (when X=20
happens, Y necessarily happens afterwards), then {banzu} doesn't seem to=20
be a causal relation, and seems to be closer to {nibli} (logical=20
implication).
Except that {banzu} usually takes event arguments and {nibli} takes=20
propositions/bridi as arguments, is there any meaning difference between=20
{nibli} and {banzu}?

mu'o mi'e la .ilmen.


--=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.

--------------020606050700050207040008
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3D"Content-Type=
">
  </head>
  <body text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 23/03/2015 22:26, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite=3D"mid:CAO7tK2faPDjTKnTLEva6dQsQUC+o1vCdF-Rx+OMt1Rkv+r8nBg@mail.gmail.=
com"
      type=3D"cite">
      <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 moz-do-not-send=3D"true"
                href=3D"mailto:ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">i=
lmen.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">
              <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">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").<br>
                But this impression that {selja'e} is looser than
                {rinka} is perhaps subjective, and maybe {rinka} can be
                used just as vaguely.</div>
            </blockquote>
            <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 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.</div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    .i'a<br>
    <blockquote
cite=3D"mid:CAO7tK2faPDjTKnTLEva6dQsQUC+o1vCdF-Rx+OMt1Rkv+r8nBg@mail.gmail.=
com"
      type=3D"cite">
      <div dir=3D"ltr">
        <div class=3D"gmail_extra">
          <div class=3D"gmail_quote">
            <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"><span class=3D"">
                  <blockquote type=3D"cite">
                    <div dir=3D"ltr">
                      <div class=3D"gmail_extra">
                        <div class=3D"gmail_quote">
                          <div>"banzu" is not the same as "rinka".=C2=A0 .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</div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                </span> 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}.<br>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>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.<br>
            </div>
            <br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    Also, if { <span class=3D"">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</span> }, then
    is {banzu} a causal relation? If causal relations have to do with
    temporal sequences of events (when X happens, Y necessarily happens
    afterwards), then {banzu} doesn't seem to be a causal relation, and
    seems to be closer to {nibli} (logical implication).<br>
    Except that {banzu} usually takes event arguments and {nibli} takes
    propositions/bridi as arguments, is there any meaning difference
    between {nibli} and {banzu}?<br>
    <br>
    mu'o mi'e la .ilmen.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

<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 />

--------------020606050700050207040008--