On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Alex Rozenshteyn <
rpglover64@gmail.com> wrote:
> If {va'o} and {va'o da'i} are not the way to do it, how else would one
> translate a natlang "if"? It seems that lojban's logical connectives are
> too narrow in scope for the purpose.
>
> Furthermore, it seems odd to me that while place , time ({pu}, {ca}, {ba}),
> potentiality {{ca'a}, {ka'e}, etc), and contour/aspect can all be inferred
> from context (at least as I understood the CLL), factuallity vs
> counterfactuallity cannot: if the statement {ta jelca} can mean either
> "that is on fire" or "that is flammable", why can't {ta jelca va'o lo mutce
> glare} be read as counterfactual?
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Luke Bergen <
lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's a good point. If I say {mi citka ba lo nu mi xagji} it is possible
>> that there is causality baked in just via the fact that I'm stating that the
>> bridi {mi citka ba lo nu mi xagji} is true and NOT NECESSARILY that {mi
>> citka} is true. I wasn't asking specifically about {ri'a} vs {mu'i} vs
>> etc... I was just asking if there was a causal connection between the two
>> pieces. It very well COULD be that {mi citka ba lo nu mi xagji} and that
>> {mi citka} and {mi xagji} only happen to come one after the other. {mi
>> klama lo zdani ba lo nu mi pilno lo skami} doesn't necessarily imply
>> anything other than "after I used the computer, I went home". No mu'i,
>> ri'a, ni'i, etc... in that.
>> (also, I think you ciska in lojban. If you're nu citka bau la lojban then
>> your mom didn't teach you very good table manners =p )
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Michael Turniansky
>> <
mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would argue (and my opinion isn't necessarily the "one true way",
>>> mind you) that yeah it makes a factual claim, as does the main bridi.
>>> (Although I might simply phrase it "Having a pet dinosaur,...." (e.g.
>>> "... I go through a lot of Bronto Chow in week") In other words, I
>>> contend that with all BAI/FI'O constructions, you are making a factual
>>> claim. "Mi citka bau la lojban" I am not just claiming that I write,
>>> but I'm writing in lojban. Without the lojban part, the sentence just
>>> isn't true. If I say "mi gunka ki'u lo nu mi nitcu lo jdini", if I
>>> don't need the money, the bridi is not true. I am asserting "mi gunka
>>> .ije mi nitcu lo jdini". "va'" is no different in this regard.
>>> --gejyspa
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:05 AM, John E Clifford <
kali9putra@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Taking all that into account is {va'o lonu mi ponse lo dalpe'o
>>> > dinsauru} "Since
>>> > I have a pet dinosaur" or is it merely indeterminate as to the truth of
>>> > the
>>> > condition?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message ----
>>> > From: Remo Dentato <
rdentato@gmail.com>
>>> > To:
lojban@googlegroups.com
>>> > Cc: Michael Turniansky <
mturniansky@gmail.com>
>>> > Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 8:20:14 AM
>>> > Subject: Re: [lojban] Regularization
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Michael Turniansky
>>> > <
mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Counterfactual meaning not as things are, but as they might be. So,
>>> >> for example "va'o lo nu lo snime cu carvi kei mi ma'ekla le birju"->
>>> >> "I drive to the office in the snow" ("in the situation of it snowing,
>>> >> I drive to the office") "va'o da'i lo nu lo snime cu carvi kei mi
>>> >> ma'ekla le birju" -> "if it snows, I will drive to the office". ("in
>>> >> the theoretical situation of it snowing, I drive to the office")
>>> >> Clearer?
>>> >
>>> > A little bit. I guess that in the translation of "if I had a pet
>>> > dinosaur"
>>> >
>>> >
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-download_wiki_attachment.php?attId=784
>>> >
>>> > Instead of {va'o lonu mi ponse lo dalpe'o dinsauru}) I should have
>>> > used {va'o da'i lonu mi ponse
>>> > lo dalpe'o dinsauru}
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> > Groups
>>> > "lojban" group.
>>> > To post to this group, send email to
lojban@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> >
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>> >
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> > Groups "lojban" group.
>>> > To post to this group, send email to
lojban@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> >
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>> >
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "lojban" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to
lojban@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>>
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --
> Alex R
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
>
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>