[lojban] Re: Denoting counterfactual sentences in Lojban?

[Jorge Llambías <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Apr 8, 2005 9:24 PM, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The suggestion to put it into abstract form, {nu}
> or {du'u}, is a good one except that it is hard
> to see what the appropriate sentences would be;
> what selbri goes with the abstract sumti. 

ko'a nu la suzan klama
i ko'e du'u ko'a lerci
i ko'i du'u la jan djuno ko'e
i la suzan sruma ko'i

You can also use {ju'a nai} to mark something as a non-assertion:

lo nu la suzan klama cu lerci
i ju'a nai la jan djuno la'e di'u
i la suzan sruma la'e di'u 

> > > The translation given in the answer key is:
> > >
> > > .i la suzyn. sruma lenu la jan. djuno lenu
> > lerci fa lenu la suzyn.
> > > klama
> >
> > Whether to use nu or du'u is stylistic, for the
> > most part, in this
> > case.
> 
> Well, knowing a state of affairs doesn't make a
> lot of sense, nor does assuming one.  I would
> think {du'u} is pretty standard for both of
> these.

I agree.

I think Lojban could probably do well with just one abstractor,
since usually only one makes sense, so for example whatever
you use for the abstraction in x2 of djuno, the only way to make
sense of the sentence is to unterpret it as {du'u}. But, given the
variety we have, we should try to use the correct one for the
situation.


> > > because this is a posited equivalence between
> > two entities of
> > > different types, it seems semantically
> > incorrect even though it
> > > may (?) be syntactically allowable.
> >
> > You mean because it equates a cmene and a
> > lujvo?  It doesn't matter;
> > they are both names, because of la.  It's the
> > referents that matter.
> >
> > gliban, btw.
> >
> Or, for that matter, {la inglic} or with one or
> more /i/ replaced by /e/.

Or use {jbobau} for Lojban.

mu'o mi'e xorxes