From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Apr 08 17:58:58 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 18809 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2005 00:58:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2005 00:58:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2005 00:58:57 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DK4JM-0001Hg-PD for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:58:56 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DK4J6-0001HO-Ou; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:58:42 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DK4Is-0001HF-Fo for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:58:26 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.202]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DK4Iq-0001Gb-MG for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:58:26 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so1104494wri for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:57:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=fVR8cAWikMIi1kws+/sfPx4GbYg87GJYwFeVjxJBNNo9dYihjkCYhLgaslUxarQ1gr8uZtfFoorZA6tVBrEivtQOMzli80C+l7fQFzXkP5o12wrWW7KW8qRtN2yGI+AUQ5Rm6WGpfCGk6u0tidAKJiJwrlMKQj99uK8CnSGBk04= Received: by 10.54.40.34 with SMTP id n34mr92324wrn; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.69.3 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:57:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d1756050408175713349382@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 21:57:52 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20050409002439.34810.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20050409002439.34810.qmail@web81304.mail.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 9801 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Denoting counterfactual sentences in Lojban? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24157 On Apr 8, 2005 9:24 PM, John E Clifford wrote: > The suggestion to put it into abstract form, {nu} > or {du'u}, is a good one except that it is hard > to see what the appropriate sentences would be; > what selbri goes with the abstract sumti. ko'a nu la suzan klama i ko'e du'u ko'a lerci i ko'i du'u la jan djuno ko'e i la suzan sruma ko'i You can also use {ju'a nai} to mark something as a non-assertion: lo nu la suzan klama cu lerci i ju'a nai la jan djuno la'e di'u i la suzan sruma la'e di'u > > > The translation given in the answer key is: > > > > > > .i la suzyn. sruma lenu la jan. djuno lenu > > lerci fa lenu la suzyn. > > > klama > > > > Whether to use nu or du'u is stylistic, for the > > most part, in this > > case. > > Well, knowing a state of affairs doesn't make a > lot of sense, nor does assuming one. I would > think {du'u} is pretty standard for both of > these. I agree. I think Lojban could probably do well with just one abstractor, since usually only one makes sense, so for example whatever you use for the abstraction in x2 of djuno, the only way to make sense of the sentence is to unterpret it as {du'u}. But, given the variety we have, we should try to use the correct one for the situation. > > > because this is a posited equivalence between > > two entities of > > > different types, it seems semantically > > incorrect even though it > > > may (?) be syntactically allowable. > > > > You mean because it equates a cmene and a > > lujvo? It doesn't matter; > > they are both names, because of la. It's the > > referents that matter. > > > > gliban, btw. > > > Or, for that matter, {la inglic} or with one or > more /i/ replaced by /e/. Or use {jbobau} for Lojban. mu'o mi'e xorxes