Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA once again. Possible worlds.

{ni'i} and {va'o} are new to this discussion and seem to be foreign to it. {ni'i} indicates that the marked statement follows logically (from the preceding, usually) and can take the name of a logic to be more specific (default among the all unnamed possibilities to standard bivalent logic). Nothing overt to do with necessity or possibility here, though, if "follows" means "by a valid inference", the marked sentence must be true if all the premises are. This is thus not about the necessity of the marked sentence but only about the relation. This is peripherally related to the modals, but obviously closer to various other "because"s.

{va'o} is even more remote, forming part of a complex predicate, indicating that the core predicate is active when the event {va'o} introduces occurs. Nothing is said about whether the core event might occur otherwise or whether the core event always accompanies the condition. So, this relates to even {ganai ... gi ...} in no particular way, all possibilities -- except that on an occasion the two coincided -- are possible. In short, this does not belong in the same semantic domain as the connective, and certainly not of the modals.

From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Revising mu'ei and CAhA once again. Possible worlds.

On Thursday, August 9, 2012 2:54:00 AM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna
> <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> anyway, what is in your opinion the difference between {pu'i} and {ca'a}?
[...]
> That leaves two interesting meanings without a simple form, that we
> can assign to "pu'i" and "nu'o":
>
> ka'e na je ca'a = pu'i
> ka'e je na ca'a = nu'o
>
> pu'i: "actually, but not necessarily" or "actually, but possibly not"
> nu'o: "actually not but possibly" or "actually not, but not necessarily not"

I forgot to mention that this corresponds well with your diagrams:
"pu'i" is a black ball that comes from a bag also containing white
balls, and "nu'o is a white ball that comes from a bag also containing
black balls, so they make reference both to the ball and the bag,
while "ca'a" is just a black ball, and "ka'e" is just a bag containg
black balls.

Your scheme is excellent, doi xorxes. Yes, there is not much difference between your scheme and mine.

Probably, because I based mine on your notes in lojban.org wiki pages on mu'ei, conditionals and CAhA :-)

The wiki doesn't mention {pu'i}. That's why {ca'a} is

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/''ca'ai'',+''ka'ei''+and+''nu'oi',+and+''nau'a''

not defined correctly (is it {ka'e je ca'a} or {ka'e na je ca'a}?).

But your new scheme is pretty clear.

I wish we could add {da'i} to this scheme.

Anyway, I'm sure that redefining CAhA as xorxes just suggested is a must.

I don't know how to explain my scheme better

but the shortest version of it would be

A-level. {ka'e}

M-level. {nu'o,pu'i}

F-level. {ca'a}

Other topics relating to conditionals are:

1. Relation between {ni'i} and {ganai ... gi}. Needs to be clarified. What are your thoughts, John?

2. {va'o} which as wiki mentions is more vague and therefore powerful than {ganai ...gi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/4kwHtIuc8mUJ.
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.