The problem is that the connective is still truth func= tional. So, the second is true so long as you don't study, regardless= of any connection between studying and learning, which is the point of the= claim (well, aside from the directive nature of the utterance). The = first likewise is true in all alternate universes (or whatever) in which I = don't have wings, where as the intention is to consider a universe where I = *do* have wings (or maybe, again, just the relationship between having wing= s and being able to fly). The third is about consequences and blame, = and incidentally about the rlation between shopping and what is available a= t home. It is permanently true, since the antecedent is definitely false.

From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.c= om>
To: lojban@googl= egroups.com
Sent: Wed, = December 8, 2010 5:30:42 AM
Subjec= t: Re: [lojban] conditional and hypotetical sentences
=
The three examples share the following logical connection:

If A, the= n B.

In Lojban, this connection is commonly translated with a "condi= tional if", such as:

ganai A gi B

Thus:

ganai [I had w= ings] gi [I could fly]

ganai [you study] gi [you will learn]

ganai [you had gone to the= store] gi [we wouldn't have to eat pizza tonight]

This is the consi= stent part. The varying part is the extent to which the described events ar= e hypothetical. The first example is presumably the most hypothetical: not = only the consequence ("I fly") but also the condition ("I have wings") itse= lf are a supposition of a fundamentally fictional event. In Lojban, usually= "da'i" is used to mark "nonfactual". Since both elements of the connection= belong to a fictional framework, I would put "da'i" outside the connection= construct so as to modify its whole:

da'i ganai nalci mi gi mi ka'e vofli

The past tense in the Engli= sh should not be translated literally, because it's a natlang way of expres= sing a nonfactual idea and the idea in question has little to do with the e= vent being of the past.

In the third example, "you had gone to the store" is a condition that's= not fundamentally fictional ("you go to the store" is a factual possibilit= y in that the entities "you" and "the store" are readily existent and the a= ct of going is an intrinsic if not circumstantially allowed ability of "you= ") and limited to the past ("we don't have to eat pizza tonight" is conting= ent upon "you go to the store" happening in the past):

ganai do pu klama lo zarci gi mi ca lo cabycte na bai citka lo djarpiza=

("na" negates all the rightward stuffs in the sentence, and "ca lo = cabycte" is to describe when "bai citka lo djarpiza" wouldn't happen i.e. t= he object of the negation, so I put "ca lo cabycte" before "na" to save it = from the negation scope.)

The second example is the most open as to when the condition is to take= place: "you learn" is not contingent upon "you study" happening now or in = the future. It's more axiomatic, less tense-specific (again in spite of the= future tense in the English). Therefore:

ganai do tadni gi do cilre

On a stylistic note, I like to av= oid repeating the same words, so I would paraphrase the above as follows:
da'i mi ganai se nalci gi ka'e vofli

do ganai tadni gi cilre

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.