From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Oct 02 17:43:08 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailbox-7.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.107])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 17wu50-0007d0-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:43:02 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-80.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.80])
	by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E34226D29
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Thu,  3 Oct 2002 02:39:15 +0200 (DST)
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: sticky hypothesis
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 01:40:53 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCEAEGKAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <20020929161022.GC50774@allusion.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
X-archive-position: 1846
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Jordan DeLong
> [...]
> > xorxes:
> > >I think you want {ru'a} not {da'i} for this.
> > 
> > That may well be. I am not sure at all about the difference
> > between what CLL calls an assumption (for ru'a) and an
> > hypothesis.  But as CLL tends to make {ru'a} close to {e'u},
> > I would rather go for {da'i} in may case.
> 
> I think this is most certainly a proper use for {da'i}.  Much of
> the anti-da'i-ism seems to be largely caused by a sort of agenda
> to get one's own useless experimental cmavo to be used (in this
> case mu'ei).

It would not seem so to you if you were capable of digesting the
arguments adduced. I don't know what your problem is; it strikes
me as essentially attentional, since you do seem to understand
things that you put your mind to.

> > >Since {ru'acu'i} and {ru'anai} seem to be undefined,
> > >how about:
> > >ru'a: hypothesis
> > >ru'acu'i: dependents of hypothesis
> > >ru'anai: end hypothesis
> > 
> > I like it! But would that mean I 'll have to repeat {ru'acu'i} in all
> > bridis dependent of hypothesis? I guess yes, and that is a pain,
> > compared to a sticky tag.
> 
> I don't like this.  ru'anai doesn't end the hypothesis, it says
> that whatever it is attached to is not assumption.  Text scope was
> invented for this; you should use a modal tag + tu'e ... tu'u for
> the whole block, pe'i.  The book doesn't support this (ab)use of ru'a.

... but I agree with you here, fwiw.

--And.