From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 27 07:47:35 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 27 May 2008 07:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K10Sd-0005vC-1s for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:47:35 -0700 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.245]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K10SS-0005uP-Mn for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:47:34 -0700 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so2464908rvf.46 for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:47:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=HzuDBg/IaIuct7PPKpe76seDc7XQt2RIpCUa/WJgXQ0=; b=CrUALaS0ElE261Iz3rJZZ8qL/8minvaITHIAbH4I/kZghQCCTZd5uRV/7QArTwOSf98hhDFt+myR8Opvce6Sb1QiaKzN0lmjSraGCI8lUnyATPDHDRslGAZO1UHQbzTtuZgfY/jQLKxwkANaUv955gnuCVyZHEZwGuhzdqgCSFg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=O2UVGjG5DKm93M5QSlwPco8uo9eouYkLEC6PPYf9KMhDGval8m1nrIrR/92982Upd+zUvC7FDzjm3QPUgrxmmd5L5IU+tc7EosxPenLEb/0VQRqY8gkMr/7gnZaGFDgB9nlWmjLEJ+mvGnkp9T9k4p0PKiyyZ9RD2ZfhEL2E/hU= Received: by 10.141.141.3 with SMTP id t3mr587675rvn.72.1211899638476; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.162.14 with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2008 07:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <96f789a60805270747t3a1cf5ack91f12236fc20d2aa@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:47:18 -0400 From: "Michael Turniansky" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Assertions of time-relations and precision of abstractions In-Reply-To: <200805271629.13877.eldrikdo@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200805271629.13877.eldrikdo@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14442 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mturniansky@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:29 AM, nam wrote: > Am Dienstag 27 Mai 2008 14:31:36 schrieb nam: > >> So, would it be valid so sum up: If {.i broda ba lo nu brode} is given, >> {broda} happens iff {brode} happens? > > Sry, that's plain wrong. Don't konw what I was thinking about.. > > What I wanted to ask is: Would it be fine to say: > > Given: {.i broda ba lo nu brode} > Then: {.i broda .inaja brode} > (This doesn't deny 'when hell frezes' [brode], because if NOT brode then NOT > broda) => (If hell never freezes, I'll never eat the banana or whatever) > -- I think that that's fine to say as long as we understand we are talking about a _particular_ (le) event/events. To say "I (will) shop after this TV show is over" does not imply that I've never shopped before (unless we add a "po'o"/"only" to it, or similar device (pare'u, etc.)). --gejyspa To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.