Jorge Llambías, On 05/08/2012 18:38:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:bi'ai is described as naka'ena which in my scheme is equal to {ca'a}.I can't see your scheme without registering to Facebook, but "ca'a" ("actually") is not the same as ""bi'ai"="naka'ena" ("necessarily"). If something is necessarily the case, then it must be actually the case, but not the other way around. You may hold a philosophical position that says that everything that is the case is necessarily so (i.e. it could not have been any different), but linguistically it doesn't work, because we can and do talk about how things could have been different. If everything necessarily had to be the way it is, nothing could have been different.
"If p is the case then q is necessarily the case" doesn't entail that q is the case; only when p is the case does it entail that q is the case. As the blessed Jim McCawley once pointed out to me on the one occasion I had the good fortune to meet him: (Today is Tuesday) "If today is Thursday then tomorrow is Friday" true if interpreted as a conditional true if interpreted as so-called 'logical-if' (= either tomorrow is Friday or today is not Thursday) "If today is Thursday then tomorrow is Wednesday" false if interpreted as a conditional true if interpreted as 'logical-if' "If today is Tuesday then tomorrow is Wednesday" true if interpreted as a conditional true if interpreted as 'logical-if' "If today is Thursday then tomorrow is wednesday" false if interpreted as a conditional true if interpreted as 'logical-if' It was McCawley who explained to me the logic of conditionals. --And. -- 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.