[lojban-beginners] Re: Implications of partly negated, commutative logical connections

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 7/3/08, namor <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I understand right,
> commutative logical connections with one side negated are mainly useful for
> observations in which you don't want to make any claims about causality.
> {za'a le prenu cu gelki gi'anai citka}
> I observe, It is true that the person is happy if it is true that the person
> eats
> I observe, It is true that the person eats only if it is true that the person
> is happy

Strictly speaking, it's not even clear that you are talking about more than
one occasion or that you are pairing the different eventual eatings or not
eatings with simultaneous being happies or not being happies.

You could make that more explicit by saying:

{za'a roroiku le prenu cu gelki gi'anai citka}
"I observe that, on each occasion, it is true that the person is happy
if it is true that the person eats"


> For instance,
> you observe a friend is happy whenever he's with you:
> {[za'a] le mi pendo cu gleki .gi'anai kansa mi}
> It is true my friend is happy if it is true that he is with me
> It is true that my friend is with me only if it is true he is happy
>
> Maybe the friend a very happy person and always happy, we cannot know and do
> not claim this to be true or false.
>
> Is the view on OR/A connections with one side negated right?

You can add {roroiku} for "whenever" to make sure you are understood
to be talking about many occasions and not just once.

> (ni'oru'e)
> Is there a way to weaken a connection to something like: 'not always, but
> often/much of the time', the connection is true?

{so'aroiku}, {so'eroiku}, {so'iroiku}, ...

mu'o mi'e xorxes