On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Ian Johnson= <blindbrava= do@gmail.com> wrote:

I suspected the answer would be something along these lines, actually, alth= ough I didn't think there might be quite that many choices. Thank you.<= br>
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at= 4:42 AM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.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.