Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selckiku@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::236;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ddf9bf79-6666-498a-a15b-9b960419b8f8@googlegroups.com>
References: <ddf9bf79-6666-498a-a15b-9b960419b8f8@googlegroups.com>
From: Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 00:55:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJHgu=9CrhKqLyvz1zz4F87omCXZxBKWn1FEa5N5WNXbPRuvFg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] ganai-gi and if-then
To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158ab6a2760e2050e28b8cf
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: 0.8
X-Spam_score_int: 8
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 
 Content preview:  You're not alone if you feel confused by logical conjunctions.
    If by any chance there's some sort of Sapir-Whorfian benefit to learning
   the logic logical parts of Lojban, then that strange disorienting presently
    unpleasant feeling is actually the feeling of you being Sapir-Whorfed by
   grokking deeply how to logically conjunct things. I don't know either if that's
    true but it's reassuring to think anyway while you're being overwhelmed by
    it. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.8 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: googlegroups.com]
  2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
                             [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN]
                             [A]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
                             [74.125.82.183 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
  0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail
                             domains are different
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (selckiku[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                             [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and
                             EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL      Mailspike good senders
Content-Length: 7499

--089e0158ab6a2760e2050e28b8cf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

You're not alone if you feel confused by logical conjunctions. If by any
chance there's some sort of Sapir-Whorfian benefit to learning the logic
logical parts of Lojban, then that strange disorienting presently
unpleasant feeling is actually the feeling of you being Sapir-Whorfed by
grokking deeply how to logically conjunct things. I don't know either if
that's true but it's reassuring to think anyway while you're being
overwhelmed by it.

The "A" and/or conjunction affirms three cases and denies only one. So I
find it's marginally less confusing to consider it in terms of the single
case that it denies, just because then we're thinking about one thing
instead of three. So with {ga B gi C} there's three affirmed cases, that
it's just B, just C, or both B and C. Which is simple enough if nothing's
negated. ;) But let's just think about the remaining case, the one case
denied: It is NOT the case that neither B nor C. The only case that doesn't
happen is that neither side is true.

OK so keep thinking about just that one negative case, and look at {ganai B
gi C}-- the only case that doesn't happen is when neither side is true,
that is, when NOT not B (that is, B) and also not C. Confusing as mabla,
but at least it's one thing to think about instead of three. One case is
denied: That B happens, but C doesn't. It doesn't happen that B happens but
C doesn't happen. In every case where B happens, C happens. It's not being
asserted the other way around, we're not saying C implies B-- that's one of
the three affirmed cases, is when C, but not B. The only case denied is the
case where B happens but C does not.

Mostly you don't need to say that. Mostly you're not trying to logically
associate events in the world. You're just trying to talk about
hypothetical causation. {lo nu broda cu jalge da'i lo nu brode}
Theoretically, an event of broda would result from an event of brode. You
can say that with only slightly more vagueness and fairly concisely as
{brode ja'e da'i lo nu broda} which is the sort of construction I usually
speak in myself. If you're just interested in expressing the relationships
between hypothetical events, and you don't care at the moment about
expressing a particular logical relationship, that's the set of tools you
want. It's slightly confusing because it's in two parts: One part shows the
relationship between the events (the causal brivla and their abbreviations)
and the other part, {da'i}, just throws it into the hypothetical. But I'm
sure you'll agree it's still less alien than logically connecting things.
;)

As far as understanding {ganai .. gi ..} in the wild, frankly you'll get
farthest just reading it as "if .. then .." because people (mis)learned to
(mis)use it that way. Do your best to get it right yourself, but just read
it that way unless someone asks you to correct their Lojban. :D

mu'omi'e la stela selckiku

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--089e0158ab6a2760e2050e28b8cf
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">You&#39;re not alone if you feel confused by logical conju=
nctions. If by any chance there&#39;s some sort of Sapir-Whorfian benefit t=
o learning the logic logical parts of Lojban, then that strange disorientin=
g presently unpleasant feeling is actually the feeling of you being Sapir-W=
horfed by grokking deeply how to logically conjunct things. I don&#39;t kno=
w either if that&#39;s true but it&#39;s reassuring to think anyway while y=
ou&#39;re being overwhelmed by it.<br><br>The &quot;A&quot; and/or conjunct=
ion affirms three cases and denies only one. So I find it&#39;s marginally =
less confusing to consider it in terms of the single case that it denies, j=
ust because then we&#39;re thinking about one thing instead of three. So wi=
th {ga B gi C} there&#39;s three affirmed cases, that it&#39;s just B, just=
 C, or both B and C. Which is simple enough if nothing&#39;s negated. ;) Bu=
t let&#39;s just think about the remaining case, the one case denied: It is=
 NOT the case that neither B nor C. The only case that doesn&#39;t happen i=
s that neither side is true. <br><br>OK so keep thinking about just that on=
e negative case, and look at {ganai B gi C}-- the only case that doesn&#39;=
t happen is when neither side is true, that is, when NOT not B (that is, B)=
 and also not C. Confusing as mabla, but at least it&#39;s one thing to thi=
nk about instead of three. One case is denied: That B happens, but C doesn&=
#39;t. It doesn&#39;t happen that B happens but C doesn&#39;t happen. In ev=
ery case where B happens, C happens. It&#39;s not being asserted the other =
way around, we&#39;re not saying C implies B-- that&#39;s one of the three =
affirmed cases, is when C, but not B. The only case denied is the case wher=
e B happens but C does not. <br><br>Mostly you don&#39;t need to say that. =
Mostly you&#39;re not trying to logically associate events in the world. Yo=
u&#39;re just trying to talk about hypothetical causation. {lo nu broda cu =
jalge da&#39;i lo nu brode} Theoretically, an event of broda would result f=
rom an event of brode. You can say that with only slightly more vagueness a=
nd fairly concisely as {brode ja&#39;e da&#39;i lo nu broda} which is the s=
ort of construction I usually speak in myself. If you&#39;re just intereste=
d in expressing the relationships between hypothetical events, and you don&=
#39;t care at the moment about expressing a particular logical relationship=
, that&#39;s the set of tools you want. It&#39;s slightly confusing because=
 it&#39;s in two parts: One part shows the relationship between the events =
(the causal brivla and their abbreviations) and the other part, {da&#39;i},=
 just throws it into the hypothetical. But I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll agree it=
&#39;s still less alien than logically connecting things. ;) <br><br>As far=
 as understanding {ganai .. gi ..} in the wild, frankly you&#39;ll get fart=
hest just reading it as &quot;if .. then ..&quot; because people (mis)learn=
ed to (mis)use it that way. Do your best to get it right yourself, but just=
 read it that way unless someone asks you to correct their Lojban. :D <br><=
br>mu&#39;omi&#39;e la stela selckiku <br><br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Lojban Beginners&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lo=
jban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban-beginners@goo=
glegroups.com">lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginn=
ers">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--089e0158ab6a2760e2050e28b8cf--