From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Apr 28 19:37:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 29 Apr 2001 02:37:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 82139 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2001 02:37:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2001 02:37:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.141) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Apr 2001 02:37:31 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 19:37:31 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.247 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 02:37:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.247] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Usage of logical connectives? Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 02:37:31 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Apr 2001 02:37:31.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[56C40B60:01C0D055] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6984 la adam cusku di'e >I hope that the x3 of words like "curmi" and "binxo" don't indicate a >cause. If so, then "curmi" doesn't mean "let", but "would let, if x3", >and "binxo" would mean "would become if x3", both of which are much >less useful than a more general meaning (this particular case >notwithstanding). I don't think they were meant as background. As you say below it is not clear why these gismu in particular would require such a place. They have to be interpreted as ifs, I think, if they are to be accepted at all. Even so, the usual meaning can be recovered by stipulating that by default, when the place is left unfilled, the condition is deemed to be satisfied. So we get "x1 allows x2 (taken for granted that unmentioned condition x3 holds) and "x1 becomes x2 (taken for granted that unmentioned condition x3 holds). >I think it's better to interpret these places like >we normally would interpret the x4 and x3 (respectively) of "skari" >and "viska", i.e. as indicating a "background" for the main bridi >(though it's not clear why these gismu in particular need that place >and most of the others don't). I prefer not to give them this interpretation, because as such they are impossible to justify. >We need a way to express a cause as a selbrivla and as a sumti tcita. >I used to use "va'o" for that, but that raises the question of how to >say "I had a good time at the performance." You are absolutely right that {va'o} has acquired a double meaning, but I'm not prepared to let go of its most frequent one until something better is found, and even then it will be hard to unlearn it. >The meaning isn't quite >"vi" or "ca", and "mi se zdile va'o le se tigni" would work, if "va'o" >doesn't indicate a cause. Then what to use to indicate a cause? I >think I'll try "bapli" and "bai" for this, though it might be forcing >it a little. :-) The one advantage is that it is shorter, and the concept is very frequent. But for me {bapli} already means something quite different. >or alternatively: > >"i ko nicygau le kumfa pe do ja'e le nu mi zifygau do le nu klama le >panka" Yes, that certainly works, but I'm not changing {va'o} for {seja'e}, {va'o} is already too long as it is. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.