From sentto-44114-1845-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Wed Jan 26 19:11:52 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 1774 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2000 19:11:50 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 26 Jan 2000 19:11:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 27262 invoked by uid 40001); 26 Jan 2000 19:13:08 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 27257 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2000 19:13:07 -0000 Received: from hj.egroups.com (208.48.218.12) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 26 Jan 2000 19:13:07 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1845-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by hj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jan 2000 19:13:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 8327 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2000 19:13:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.10.38 with QMQP; 26 Jan 2000 19:13:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.28) by 10.1.10.27 with SMTP; 26 Jan 2000 19:13:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 97014 invoked by uid 0); 26 Jan 2000 19:13:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000126191302.97013.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 12.128.10.26 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:13:02 PST X-Originating-IP: [12.128.10.26] To: lojban@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:13:02 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: Fwd: [lojban] Subjunctive? Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Jorge Llambias" la robin cusku di'e >SwiftRain wrote: > > Pycyn@aol.com wrote: [actually pycyn was forwarding somebody else's post] > > > > > > If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner > > > then I'd be rich. > > > > is there something wrong with lu > > "ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu" > > li'u? > >While the discussion of counterfactuals has been interesting, I >agree with this. {ganai ... gi} is a logical IF, not an English >"if", and whether I really have a million squeebies, or the >potential to aquire them, is not relevant. What do you agree with? If you agree that there is nothing wrong with that translation, you are contradicting yourself. You say {ganai ... gi} is a logical IF, not an English "if", and yet you agree that {ganai ... gi} is a good translation of English "if"? It is not a good translation in this case. (1) ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu "Either I don't have a million dollars, or I am rich." That is true. (2) ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi pindi "Either I don't have a million dollars, or I am poor." That is also true. I don't have a million dollars, so no matter what I put as the second term the sentence will be true. But the English sentence: "If I had a million dollars then I'd be rich" says more than (1). It is not a sentence about how things are just for me in this world, as Lojban (1) and (2) are. The English sentence means something like: Anyone in this world can truthfully say "either I don't have a million dollars or I am rich". You need to make the sentence apply to everyone in this world, or alternatively, apply just to myself in many possible worlds, but you cannot translate it as just a statement about me in this world. If it is just about me in this world without counterfactuals it has very little content. >zo'o mi ponse lo megdo rupnu .i ku'i mi na ricfu ni'i lenu >panononononono lo gugdrturki,e rupnu cu jbivamji re lo merko >rupnu Remember the dogs biting the men? You are saying that each of a million Turkish lira has the value of each of two US$. Obviously that is not what you mean, you want to talk about one single amount of a million lira and one single amount of two dollars, not a million single amounts of 1 lira and two single 1 dollar amounts taken separately. {lo rupnu be li paki'oki'o} or at least {lei paki'oki'o rupnu} This is a very common mistake, just as talking of {re nanca} for "two years", when what is meant is not two separate time periods of one year, but one single two-year period. I don't know whether it is worth pointing it out every time. The problem is that Lojban treats numbers as quantifiers in the purest logical way, individual or distributive, but in everyday use we normally want the collective sense. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Free shipping through 1/31/2000 at Visualize.com where you'll find limited edition prints & photographs for your home, office, collection or gift-giving needs. Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com