Re: [lojban-beginners] Conditionals--da'i etc.

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

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.