Message-Id: <m0rEbkO-00007GC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 5 Dec 1994 06:36:42 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: cmavo hit-list
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1436
Lines: 26

>And:
>> There is very much a difference. A duhu should have a truth value,
>> while a siho is a mental object. If you're describing something
>> inside a mind, siho is clearly fitting. If you're talking about
>> proof, or hypothesis testing, or suchlike then duhu is fitting.
>> A siho isn't true or false; a duhu isn't a mental object.
>
>I'll have to wait and see how it's used. From what you say I can't
>tell what's the difference between {mi jinvi le du'u broda} and
>{mi jinvi le si'o broda}. Whether the relationship described by
>the inside bridi is in someone's mind or not is given by the meaning
>of the outside selbri. What I'd like is two sentences that differ
>only in si'o/du'u to see the contrast.

I would not use "du'u" in a bridi based on "senva".  We don't dream about
the facts of a matter - rather we free-associate around ideas.  If your
thinking is logical, and the truth/reality of each bridi is important, then
"du'u" is the word of cjhoice.  When you think about something, and the
importance is the concept, and not whether it is, or even could be, true
or real, then "si'o" is the preferred word.  Certainly unattainable ideals
are better marked with "si'o", and fantasy and science fiction would have to
be careful in choosing between the words - the distinction would change the
interpretation of the story considerably from a "what if this were true" to a
more fanciful or philosophical intent.

lojbab