From pycyn@aol.com Thu Apr 25 13:12:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 25 Apr 2002 20:12:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 4828 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 20:12:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2002 20:12:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2002 20:12:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id a.126.fc1dd25 (26119) for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <126.fc1dd25.29f9ba95@aol.com> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:01:25 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] So you think you're logical? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_126.fc1dd25.29f9ba95_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14115 --part1_126.fc1dd25.29f9ba95_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/2002 2:26:26 PM Central Daylight Time, raganok@intrex.net writes: > Many times when we say 'if a then b' we mean that the iffy a causes the b if > it is true. A good case for {ri'a} then, suitably framed to prevent current explanation (needed also for {bai} In these circumstances, bai is the obvious choice for if, since > > it derives from bapli (x1 [force] (ka) forces/compels event x2 to occur; x1 > determines property x2 to manifest). But this is a remarkably prescientific notion of causation, one surely dead by the end of the 18th century. Why would we preserve it in Lojban? Aside from physical links -- expanding gases on pistons, gears and wheels, fluctuations in magnetic fields, and, of course, grabbing a hand and moving it -- it does not function well. And in those cases, {ri'a} still works. (I skip over my problem about {ka} being a force of some sort.) The 'I make you do it' use of bai is > > not very frequent - la rab.spir. found a mere 26 instances of it - and so > it > is not unreasonable to suggest that a causative if would be best expressed > by bai (la .adam. and I both have.) 26 out of how many? (That is, how mere is "mere" here?) I agree that "He physically forced me to do it" is pretty rare and I suspect that the other agentive "forces," where threat is the typical "force" are better handled by other words than {bai}. That does not mean it is right for the general causal case. <'ro temci lo menli cu nibli'> Also curiously prescientitic. Most time frames existed before there were any minds and so hardly entailed them, even as future existents, apparently. But I usppose there is some logic (at least set of premises) that does make this work out. --part1_126.fc1dd25.29f9ba95_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/2002 2:26:26 PM Central Daylight Time, raganok@intrex.net writes:


Many times when we say 'if a then b' we mean that the iffy a causes the b if
it is true.


A good case for {ri'a} then, suitably framed to prevent current explanation (needed also for {bai}

In these circumstances, bai is the obvious choice for if, since

it derives from bapli (x1 [force] (ka) forces/compels event x2 to occur; x1
determines property x2 to manifest).


But this is a remarkably prescientific notion of causation, one surely dead by the end of the 18th century.  Why would we preserve it in Lojban?  Aside from physical links -- expanding gases on pistons, gears and wheels, fluctuations in magnetic fields, and, of course, grabbing a hand and moving it -- it does not function well.  And in those cases, {ri'a} still works.  (I skip over my problem about {ka} being a force of some sort.)

The 'I make you do it' use of bai is

not very frequent - la rab.spir. found a mere 26 instances of it - and so it
is not unreasonable to suggest that a causative if would be best expressed
by bai (la .adam. and I both have.)


26 out of how many?  (That is, how mere is "mere" here?) I agree that "He physically forced me to do it" is pretty rare and I suspect that the other agentive "forces," where threat is the typical "force" are better handled by other words than {bai}.  That does not mean it is right for the general causal case.

<'ro temci lo menli cu nibli'>

Also curiously prescientitic. Most time frames existed before there were any minds and so hardly entailed them, even as future existents, apparently.  But I usppose there is some logic (at least set of premises) that does make this work out.





 --part1_126.fc1dd25.29f9ba95_boundary--