Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qSSz6-000023C; Mon, 25 Jul 94 19:34 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9513; Mon, 25 Jul 94 19:33:13 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9509; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 19:33:12 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7893; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 18:32:15 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 12:13:51 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: To be or not to be? Coffee or tea? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199407241841.AA22727@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Jul 24, 94 02:38:43 pm Content-Length: 2399 Lines: 69 la xorxes. cusku di'e > do djica tu'a loi ckafi ji loi tcati > > [In the draft grammar, djica is used without tu'a in several places. > Is this sumti raising?] Usually. In the connectives paper, all examples are sumti-raising and have been fixed. In the places paper, all examples are sumti-raising and have been changed to use "viska". In the text structure paper, 7.8 is a deliberately vague topic-comment sentence and has been left alone. I have added a note about hidden sumti-raising. > Now, suppose I want to respond "either". If I say {.a}, I'm only > saying that I want at least one of them, but I'm not saying which. > How do I say that I want either? I would say {du'ibo}, but that's > not grammatical yet. I don't understand the distinction you are making here. If you wish to avoid the possibility of getting both, use ".onai". > And to add some confusion, consider > > mi djica le nu do pinxe loi ckafi .a loi tcati > > which expands to > > mi djica le nu do pinxe loi ckafi gi'a pinxe loi tcati > > Does it further expand to > > mi djica le nu do pinxe loi ckafi kei .a le nu do pinxe loi tcati > > ? No, no, a thousand times no! Logical connectives can't expand out of abstractions, which are referentially opaque: mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive zvati gi'onai na zvati la .iupiter. I opine the-fact-that a-mass-of living-things is-at or-else isn't-at Jup iter is true, since the embedded sentence is a tautology, but: mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive zvati la .iupiter. .ijonai mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive zvati la .iupiter. I opine the-fact-that a-mass-of living-things is-at Jupiter, or-else I opine the-fact-that a-mass-of living-things isn't-at Jupiter. is false, since I have no evidence one way or the other ("jinvi" requires some sort of evidence, real or fancied, unlike "krici"). This example will be moved to the connectives paper in Section 19. > At first sight they seem equivalent, but... > > The first one means that I want that you drink at least one of them, > but I don't have to want that you drink one in particular. In the second > one, I have to want that you drink one in particular. Quite right. > I hope what I wrote makes any sense to someone. Indeed. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.