Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 19:04:36 -0500 (EST)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: sumti raising reform, was Re:  Chief logician?
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HKVVL9FICI0002BK@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1197
Lines: 37

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