From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhDTk43tBBoEZ4czzQ@googlegroups.com Mon Apr 11 11:35:16 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9LxA-0000if-K8; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:35:15 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2sf3347087vws.16 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:35:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=Y0MW51xLxyUUVdj1U13AcC/Gni8v9JipHu9JPXTCEo4=; b=nl23/ORr91C8LaEsC4lAAv+ta5oS5GFq/1WlJBhsXA+pxC0fW0FlIFseYXbasktgMv a+YCoLSkEBgdqrxUJeeFwiWOck/qcBGNsfbmg+9AM5p/x4ckLVSgb41A2A9TRj4NJoS2 1osOjLPn2wDa2HHDCR/eLP9OSEwUP6axuOifM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=2vGQlR91U57diq0YzO/x0qrCRVBYwAkdYsX0Q5AmPgByGzu556BW+3/4t6oy+WKbzz unf5gjx/fVU1D+sVHiMS27r5LIzBWBh/5o9tAQ5qbAOdfTxy8sX8mLkj+EDRLRmFyfR/ uWiISgPgWg+SbYdMJ2yOl8mXUI/vtJwPSdCMc= Received: by 10.220.123.76 with SMTP id o12mr673628vcr.53.1302546899104; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:34:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.124.37 with SMTP id s37ls2014700vcr.1.p; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.90.208 with SMTP id by16mr1340168vdb.11.1302546898289; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.90.208 with SMTP id by16mr1340167vdb.11.1302546898278; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f180.google.com (mail-qy0-f180.google.com [209.85.216.180]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o28si1387988vbn.0.2011.04.11.11.34.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.180; Received: by mail-qy0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 10so5178597qyk.11 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:34:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.117.95 with SMTP id p31mr4465883qcq.97.1302546898055; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.96.135 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:34:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <759730.3522.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:34:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Regularization From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.180 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > That's a pretty hackish solution: "if, hypothetically, blah blah happened > (it didn't, by the way), this would happen". And {va'o da'i je'unai} is 7 > syllables anyway, that's getting a little bit extreme to be a viable > solution. > > Still, {da'i} itself is not explicitly the not-necessarily-counterfactual > case, so you haven't fully solved my issue either. {da'i je'u} isn't the > other case either; {da'i je'u} is just pointless, actually. {da'i je'u cu'i} > MIGHT help, I'm not sure. > I assert da'i itself is explicitly the not-necessarily-counterfactual case and that it is equivalent to da'i je'u cu'i, and that "va'o da'i lo nu" ="if it is true that A..." But you were asking about the case of also implying simultaneously that A is *in fact* false, and I don't know of handier way of saying it in lojban than je'unai. Not every grammatical structure that exists in one language must perforce exist in another language with similar ease, ya know. --gejyspa -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.