Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA26293 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 20 Dec 1994 19:23:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199412210023.AA26293@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6820; Tue, 20 Dec 94 19:18:16 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3041; Tue, 20 Dec 1994 19:00:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 19:04:36 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: sumti raising reform, was Re: Chief logician? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 20 19:23:23 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu la nitcion cusku di'e > In fact, I can already > tell you what happens when natlang users like us do, when confronted with > a logical 'if' (naja) in contrast to natlang non-logical 'if': we ignore it. > In my experience, you'll only see novices using naja; the more expert will > realise that ni'i conveys the meaning they want. I agree and disagree. I agree that {naja} is a rather poor translation of natlang non-logical "if". I strongly disagree that "ni'i" is the alternative. {ni'i} is for *logical* entailment, and this is not what usually "if" is used for. I find that {ni'i} is used often where {ki'u} would work much better. {ni'i} works for things like: la spot se tuple voda ni'i le du'u ge ro gerku cu se tuple voda gi la spot gerku Spot has four legs because every dog has four legs and Spot is a dog. It does not work for things like: la spot se tuple voda ki'u le nu sy fadni gerku Spot has four legs because he is a normal dog. I don't think {ni'i} is a good choice here because it doesn't logically follow from that. As for non-logical "if", probably it can often be translated by {va'o}. I really don't see the connection with {ni'i}. Jorge