Re: [lojban] So you think you're logical?

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/25/2002 2:26:26 PM Central Daylight Time, raganok@intrex.net writes:

Many times when we say 'if a then b' we mean that the iffy a causes the b if
it is true.

A good case for {ri'a} then, suitably framed to prevent current explanation (needed also for {bai}

In these circumstances, bai is the obvious choice for if, since

it derives from bapli (x1 [force] (ka) forces/compels event x2 to occur; x1
determines property x2 to manifest).

But this is a remarkably prescientific notion of causation, one surely dead by the end of the 18th century.  Why would we preserve it in Lojban?  Aside from physical links -- expanding gases on pistons, gears and wheels, fluctuations in magnetic fields, and, of course, grabbing a hand and moving it -- it does not function well.  And in those cases, {ri'a} still works.  (I skip over my problem about {ka} being a force of some sort.)

The 'I make you do it' use of bai is

not very frequent - la rab.spir. found a mere 26 instances of it - and so it
is not unreasonable to suggest that a causative if would be best expressed
by bai (la .adam. and I both have.)

26 out of how many?  (That is, how mere is "mere" here?) I agree that "He physically forced me to do it" is pretty rare and I suspect that the other agentive "forces," where threat is the typical "force" are better handled by other words than {bai}.  That does not mean it is right for the general causal case.

<'ro temci lo menli cu nibli'>

Also curiously prescientitic. Most time frames existed before there were any minds and so hardly entailed them, even as future existents, apparently.  But I usppose there is some logic (at least set of premises) that does make this work out.