From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon May 29 00:59:35 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3148 ; Mon, 29 May 95 00:59:32 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 27 May 95 21:59:48 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa02479; 27 May 95 22:59 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6645; Sat, 27 May 95 17:56:57 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6576; Sat, 27 May 1995 17:56:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 17:59:10 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: {farlu} X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9505272259.aa02479@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la dilyn cusku di'e > I, on the other hand, have no particular problem with the x4. Recall > it can be a gravity well or frame of reference. In almost all cases, > it's going to be {le terdi}, but in SF stories, for instance, it might > have a different value. Alternatively, you could perhaps say {le > sraji}. Well, maybe you're right. > Umm... Check again. {xlali} does have a standard in my list. Right, I was looking at the second line of the definition. > > Why does > > {curmi} have "under conditions" but not {gasnu}? > > For this one, I can see a reason: {gasnu} refers to an actual event, > while {curmi} is a counterfactual: x1 would allow x2 to happen in > conditions x3. But that's not the way to express counterfactuals in Lojban. {mi ca'a curmi le nu ti farlu} means "I let this fall", not "I would actually let this fall under certain conditions". The conditions are the ambient conditions, just like with any other predicate. You could equally well argue that {gasnu} needs an x3 to say "x1 would bring about x2 under conditions x3". > > My hope is that all those places will simply be forgotten for lack > > of use, since I doubt that I could convince Lojban Central to drop > > them. > > Do you think we could organize a rebellion :-)? (No, I'm not really > proposing another split. I am half-seriously contemplating listing my > own versions of various gismu with texts I write.) But that's too cumbersome, and we can't have each user using their own version of the language. I prefer that they be gradually forgotten by the collective memory... :) > mu'o mi'e. dilyn. > mu'o mi'e xorxes