Re: [lojban] On the meanings of the causal gismu

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:

— What is the semantic difference between {selja'e}, {rinka} and {bapli}? Does {selja'e} express a weaker relation than that expressed by {rinka}?

Setting aside the "sumti raising" issue, I would say "rinka" and "selja'e" are pretty much equivalent. It's hard to think of cases where one works but not the other.

I think "bapli" is different, because "forcing" requires overcoming some kind of resistance. One could say "lo nu mi nelci ti cu rinka lo nu mi te vecnu ti", but using "bapli" there would seem out of place. So I would say "bapli" is just a special case of "rinka".

— The notes of {rinka} say it is a material condition; however, a true logical material condition (ganai...gi...) does not express any causal/physical relationship (if I'm not mistaken), which seems to contradict the main definition of {rinka}. So, does {rinka} entails a causal relationship?

"rinka" is not material implication. There was probably some confusion about what "material implication" meant, and someone may have thought that "material" had something to do with "physical". It's just part of the general Lojbanic tradition of misusing technical terms.

— Is {danre} the right word for the physics notion of "force"? If so, what {bapli} is all about?

"danre" seems more suited to the physics notion of "pressure", at least if we folow the gloss word. Force is measured in newtons, pressure in pascals, which is N.m^-2, so it is force applied over an area. "bapli" itself is not very good for the physics notion of force though, since a force need not force anything to happen, it may be cancelled by other forces and have no effect, or it may combine with other forces to have some effect which it doesn't have on its own. So the physics notion may have to be "bapli be zi'o". Or maybe some lujvo based on "danre" because its place structure makes more sense for the physics notion of force, a force applied to something rather than a force causing something.

— Which of the three below meanings should {banzu} have? (All of the below meanings are used in actual usage, making {banzu} a polysemous predicate.)
1) That x1 happens is a sufficient condition for x2 to happen.
2) The amount x1 (ni) is great enough for x2 to happen.
3) The amount of x1 having property x2 is great enough for x3 to happen.

#1 parallels {sarcu} and seems redundant to {rinka}; #2 is the same thing as {banzuni}; #3 parallels the meaning/usage for {dukse}, and sometimes {banzuka} is used for this meaning.

I think "banzu" is supposed to parallel "sarcu", (as in "sarcu je banzu" for "necessary and sufficient condition"), so I would say primarily #1. I think #2 may also be covered by this. I think "ni" indicates that there is an implicit "xo kau", and it can stand for "ka ... xo kau ..." as well as for "nu ... xo kau ..." or "du'u ... xo kau ..." (which one of them it is is determined by where it is used, so there is an ambiguity there of some kind). x1 of ni is an event in this case, since banzu1 forces the "nu ... xo kau... " interpretation of "ni", but an event with focus on some quantity so that it is sufficient by virtue of this quantity being great enough.

"banzu" is not the same as "rinka". ro da zo'u da banzu da .i ku'i na ku ro da zo'u da rinka da .i la'a no da zo'u da rinka da .i ro da poi kacna'u zo'u lo du'u da pilji li vo lo kacna'u cu banzu lo du'u da pilji li re lo kacna'u .i ku'i pe'i lo du'u pilji li vo cu na rinka lo du'u pilji li re

It would also have made sense to have "banzu" be part of the milxe/mutce/traji/dukse "adverbial" family, with meaning #3, but the contrast with "sarcu" is also important, so that would have to be "jai banzu" or "banzuka" I suppose.

mu'o mi'e xorxes