Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rKLY7-00007DC; Wed, 21 Dec 94 09:33 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA05206 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 09:33:25 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HKWBCMXJEO0002HY@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 07:32:30 +0200 (EET) Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3441; Wed, 21 Dec 1994 08:30:11 +0100 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 00:29:07 -0700 From: Chris Bogart Subject: ni'i vs naja Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: Chris Bogart Message-id: <01HKWBCMYDJM0002HY@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1869 Lines: 47 Xorxes: >{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. But the reference grammar paper "From Boston via the road go I" says: >7.4) la sokrates. morsi binxo ni'i le nu la sokrates. remna > Socrates dead-became with-logical-justification Socrates is-human. > Socrates died because Socrates is human. I've also been using ni'i in this slightly fuzzier way. My text is full of ".iseni'ibo" (annoyingly unzipfean as it is .uinai). It's a matter of definition of ni'i/nibli/entail/imply, I guess, but I lean more towards Nick's roomier definition. I should say, though, that I disagree with Nick about ni'i always being used in preference to naja. They're different syntactically if nothing else, and if it turns out that they mean the same thing, why use ".ini'ibo" if ".inaja" is shorter? By my own arguments I guess I should have been using ".ijanai" instead of ".iseni'ibo", but then I'm not fluent yet either... BTW I'm assuming that these are equivalent: X nibli Y Y ni'i ledu'u X X .ini'ibo Y The reference grammar paper has a little table like this, but it's not consistent with the examples. ____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ / Chris Bogart ftp://ftp.csn.org/cbogart/html/homepage.html \/ Quetzal Consulting cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~