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 m0r4HU2-00005bC; Mon, 7 Nov 94 01:58 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8512; Mon, 07 Nov 94 01:59:01 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8509; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 01:59:01 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8120; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 00:55:53 +0100 Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 16:56:51 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: Cowan weighs in #4: embedded imperatives X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 843 Lines: 18 la djan cusku di'e >> In Lojban, an imperative is true iff the command is carried out. .i la xorxes cusku di'e >Is that true? I thought imperatives didn't have truth values. The >imperative is a request/order to {do} to act in such a way as to >make the statement with {ko} replaced by {do} true. If the command >is carried out, then the order is opbeyed. I don't see what meaning >it has to say that an obeyed command is "true" and one not obeyed >is "false". I'm sure I read somewhere that lojban commands are "true" or "false" by convention for the purpose of embedding commands into larger logical structures: "ko mi dunda lei do rupnu .ija .ai mi catra do" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~