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

[Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>]

On 23/03/2015 22:26, Jorge Llambías wrote:

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:

I've always though of {selja'e} as being a somewhat looser / less strict relation than {rinka}, as if it was something like {x1 .a lo selpau be x1 cu rinka x2}, so that one can say {lo nu carvi cu selja'e lo nu mi na klama}, where the connection between the two events is not clearly explained, and where it seems that "lo nu carvi" is not the only factor that have determined the event {lo nu mi klama} not to occur (another plausible factor could be "mi na djica lo nu mi se carvi").
But this impression that {selja'e} is looser than {rinka} is perhaps subjective, and maybe {rinka} can be used just as vaguely.

Maybe, but the distinction would still be blurry, because giving an exhaustive description of the full cause of anything is nearly impossible, so we always really just give the main and most significant factors. lo nu carvi and lo nu mi na djica lo nu mi se carvi cannot be the full factors that cause lo nu mi na klama, because under the right circumstances lo nu mi klama could still happen in spite of those causes, so there's always an implicit "under conditions" that collects all the things taken for granted.

.i'a

"banzu" is not the same as "rinka".  .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

But, isn't this second example (that with {kacna'u}) what {nibli} is for? I thought that banzu-nu (the version of {banzu} that parallels {sarcu}) was the event equivalent of {nibli}.

We could also use "nibli" there, but I don't see a problem with "banzu". If p entails q then p is a sufficient condition for q. But let's discard this example if you prefer.

Also, if { 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 }, then is {banzu} a causal relation? If causal relations have to do with temporal sequences of events (when X happens, Y necessarily happens afterwards), then {banzu} doesn't seem to be a causal relation, and seems to be closer to {nibli} (logical implication).
Except that {banzu} usually takes event arguments and {nibli} takes propositions/bridi as arguments, is there any meaning difference between {nibli} and {banzu}?

mu'o mi'e la .ilmen.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.