From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 27 13:14:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 27 Aug 2001 20:14:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 60821 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2001 19:59:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Aug 2001 19:59:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Aug 2001 19:59:58 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.90.43]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010827195957.QCFM710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:59:57 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Induction Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:59:05 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jay: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Invent Yourself wrote: >=20 > > > induction is sucta. deduction and abduction are both tolsucta.=20 > deduction is > > > the logical reverse of abduction. > > > > Thank you! But shouldn't we distinguish abduction from deduction? And > > where does nibli fit in? >=20 > Seems like you could distinguish between abduction and deduction by > specifying (with bi'u) which place was the conclusion. {bi'u} specifies what is new to the addressee in the discourse context. So it won't do the job you want it to, assuming you're looking for brivla for "abduce" and "deduce". --And.