Received: from mail-px0-f189.google.com ([209.85.212.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O7TcQ-0003dM-6u; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:37 -0700 Received: by pxi11 with SMTP id 11sf2428000pxi.16 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=bpkWhJ24XtAO9uFxJrg21NKVKwUiwCGAZDhzZIFWYTE=; b=RjgJXbqCg74R0XwFFUHLVPu7ghrHOAquprwSR/cN7sMInj3XqnWNBm3g790jihjtt7 OompySSS9frSulIK8NK3QKadOJRJjtIlFXWMh3xDny4qXerBuMMDmMxCnB8/ZXvxYBsD i82j398HR9YC/Z7sqw/iRSjHZaa6Vr7zGtFbs= 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-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=p4X2EsKw2mUpWI8a+U183N0kbEK77gpvyMWBvD/gN/t3y34BtI5L64yv3h4xglp/pZ a0z8ZwjX/rc22U7scN2RUmQuPh2/ZyYr3K5to769MJ/A2Il3eltroDIZOK+IGXWlKG0Y kJBQuTUa/Y18lcuKZHGu+Xd//ANSUInYcP/cc= Received: by 10.140.83.22 with SMTP id g22mr1536666rvb.26.1272547040514; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.115.38.17 with SMTP id q17ls56922573waj.0.p; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.187.24 with SMTP id k24mr985964waf.25.1272547036200; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.187.24 with SMTP id k24mr985963waf.25.1272547036113; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id k13si32183waf.1.2010.04.29.06.17.14; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.54; Received: by mail-vw0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 4so633548vws.13 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.123.5 with SMTP id n5mr6632753vcr.109.1272547034339; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.94.77 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 06:17:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BD94677.6060909@lojban.org> References: <4BD94677.6060909@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:17:14 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Conditionals--da'i etc. From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636e1f673f119f104855ff1f0 Content-Length: 8987 --001636e1f673f119f104855ff1f0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 And that is exactly why as soon as I'm done learning the gismu, the next thing on my list to learn are the discursives/evidentials. They just all seem so dang useful and the couple that I _do_ know I love and use frequently. On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > Ian Johnson wrote: > >> Off the top of my head I can think of basically 3 main conditional cases: >> If p, which is definitely possible, then q >> If p, which might happen, then q >> If p, which is known to be false, then q >> >> The case "if p, which is definitely true, then q" is also there but I >> can't see much reason to use that outside of very formal settings like >> mathematical proofs. >> >> How do we express these, exactly? The way I understand {da'i} is that {.i >> ganai broda gi brode} is case 1 and {.i da'i ganai brode gi brode} is case >> 2. Do I understand these correctly? If so, how does case 3 (the >> contrary-to-fact case) work? >> >> A related question that came to mind when I considered what {da'inai} >> means in the dictionary: does {nai nai} simply not do anything if attached >> to a UI? I ask because I see "supposing" as one thing, "in fact" as another, >> and "contrary to fact" as yet another. The latter two seem like they could >> potentially be opposites. >> > > I don't think da'i necessary applies to any of the above. Lojban is > extremely rich in expressions of how true something might be - indeed > possibly too rich, so that people tend to use one or two of the options and > not consider the others. > > je'u/je'unai discursively indicate a degree of truth > la'a/la'anai discursively indicate a degree of probability > Those two series cover all of your examples, and each can be modified with > cai, sai, ru'e, and cu'i to give a scalar degree. > There are other discursives that could express truth-related claims: > ba'u/ba'unai indicates a scale from exaggeration to understatement with > accuracy in the middle. > and > do'a/do'anai indicating a scale of generous vs. parsimonious, which in > questions of truth, I understand as referring to a degree of rigour or > adherence to rigid and consistent epistemology. > ju'o/ju'onai indicate a degree to which the speaker personally knows that > the statement is true or not, similar to je'u but again focusing on the > speaker's choice of epistemology. > I see sa'e/sa'enai as similar to (but in a reverse direction from) do'a but > referring to how carefully or precisely the speaker is expressing what might > be evaluated for truth. > > da'i/da'inai indicates supposition as opposed to truth. Something marked > with da'i says nothing about whether it might or might not be true. da'inai > is close to je'u, but is contrasted with supposition rather than falsity. > It has been used in Lojban as a shortcut form of the subjunctive or > counterfactual found in natural languages, but as the above options show, > may not always be the most precise way of expressing the manner or degree to > which a bridi may be perfectly rigidly true and factual and precisely > expressed. > > lojbab > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lojban Beginners" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en. --001636e1f673f119f104855ff1f0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And that is exactly why as soon as I'm done learning the gismu, the nex= t thing on my list to learn are the discursives/evidentials. =A0They just a= ll seem so dang useful and the couple that I _do_ know I love and use frequ= ently.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Robert LeCh= evalier <lojbab@l= ojban.org> wrote:
Ian Johnson wrote:
Off the top of my head I can think of basically 3 main conditional cases: If p, which is definitely possible, then q
If p, which might happen, then q
If p, which is known to be false, then q

The case "if p, which is definitely true, then q" is also there b= ut I can't see much reason to use that outside of very formal settings = like mathematical proofs.

How do we express these, exactly? The way I understand {da'i} is that {= .i ganai broda gi brode} is case 1 and {.i da'i ganai brode gi brode} i= s case 2. Do I understand these correctly? If so, how does case 3 (the cont= rary-to-fact case) work?

A related question that came to mind when I considered what {da'inai} m= eans in the dictionary: does {nai nai} simply not do anything if attached t= o a UI? I ask because I see "supposing" as one thing, "in fa= ct" as another, and "contrary to fact" as yet another. The l= atter two seem like they could potentially be opposites.

I don't think da'i necessary applies to any of the above. =A0Lojban= is extremely rich in expressions of how true something might be - indeed p= ossibly too rich, so that people tend to use one or two of the options and = not consider the others.

je'u/je'unai discursively indicate a degree of truth
la'a/la'anai discursively indicate a degree of probability
Those two series cover all of your examples, and each can be modified with = cai, sai, ru'e, and cu'i to give a scalar degree.
There are other discursives that could express truth-related claims:
ba'u/ba'unai indicates a scale from exaggeration to understatement = with accuracy in the middle.
and
do'a/do'anai indicating a scale of generous vs. parsimonious, which= in questions of truth, I understand as referring to a degree of rigour or = adherence to rigid and consistent epistemology.
ju'o/ju'onai indicate a degree to which the speaker personally know= s that the statement is true or not, similar to je'u but again focusing= on =A0the speaker's choice of epistemology.
I see sa'e/sa'enai as similar to (but in a reverse direction from) = do'a but referring to how carefully or precisely the speaker is express= ing what might be evaluated for truth.

da'i/da'inai indicates supposition as opposed to truth. =A0Somethin= g marked with da'i says nothing about whether it might or might not be = true. =A0da'inai is close to je'u, but is contrasted with suppositi= on rather than falsity. =A0It has been used in Lojban as a shortcut form of= the subjunctive or counterfactual found in natural languages, but as the a= bove options show, may not always be the most precise way of expressing the= manner or degree to which a bridi may be perfectly rigidly true and factua= l and precisely expressed.

lojbab



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+un= subscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--001636e1f673f119f104855ff1f0--