From gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch Sun Dec 02 04:26:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 2 Dec 2001 12:26:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 342 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2001 12:26:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2001 12:26:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta9n.bluewin.ch) (195.186.1.215) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2001 12:26:17 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (62.202.36.231) by mta9n.bluewin.ch (Bluewin AG 6.0.032) id 3C07A056000A21CF for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:26:14 +0100 Message-ID: <003701c17b2c$3f4be340$e724ca3e@oemcomputer> To: References: <009101c17a79$17b5b3a0$4431ca3e@oemcomputer> <20011201133929.A697@twcny.rr.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] if Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:10:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "G. Dyke" X-Yahoo-Profile: gregvdyke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Speer" To: "G. Dyke" Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 7:39 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] if > On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 04:00:59PM +0100, G. Dyke wrote: > > I you meet john, welcome him > > > > It's ridiculous to use ganai gi, as this sentence does not cover cases when > > you don't meet john. I suggest: > > > > fau lenu do penmi la djan. ku ko cusku lu fi'i djan > > Why is that ridiculous? If you don't meet John, it doesn't matter > whether you welcome him or not, because he's not THERE. Furthermore, > even the English version doesn't tell you what to do if you don't meet > him. No, I meant the English version makes no statement *at all* (implied or otherwise) about what should be done if you meet john, so does my fau version > If you wanted to say explicitly not to greet John if you don't meet him, > that's a case for {go...gi}. > > There is one time I saw {fau} used well, and it really referred to an > associated event, not "if". I think that both {fau} and {va'o} came > about from people desperately groping for a modal which means "if". > {va'o} is worse, though, because the gismu {vanbi} has nothing to do > with causation. > > > I have more trouble with the sentence > > > > if you had met john, you'd have thought he was handsome. > > > > Grice says that in fact you didn't meet john, so ganai gi logic says we'll > > never know what your opinion of his handsomeness is. > > > > fau da'i lenu do pu penmi la djan kei do jinvi ledu'u ri melbi > > Let me just pretend you used {ganai...gi} instead of {fau}. You can use > {ganai da'i}, and it's rather informal, just like using {a'o} for {mi > pacna lenu...} To be explicit requires either something very ugly or > {mu'ei}. > > {romu'ei lenu do pu penmi la djan kei do jinvi ledu'u ri melbi} but this means the same as what I wrote! (I put ri because I'm not going to refer back to the last sumti with ri when I can already use do) > > > Where does mu'ei fit? > > Where you're using {fau da'i}. So romu'ei means fau da'i > > > What do I do with sentences like "he wouldn't have been caught if he hadn't > > been there" which usually assert that he was caught and he was there? I'll take the actual sentence I am trying to translate: "...he went faster, so that I think he might have got away altogether if he had not unfortunately run into a gooseberry net." this sentence asserts that he did run into a gooseberry net romu'ei and fau da'i both rely on implicature, while the English sentence (either through malglico or an elipsised "which he did") makes an assertion > > {ko'a na se kavbu romu'ei lenu ko'a na va zvati}. You could perhaps use > {so'amu'ei} if you don't want to sound so absolutely certain. I'm not absolutly certain about what would have happenned, but I do no exactly what did > > When discussing actual causation, I believe that either {ganai...gi} or > a gismu will always work. When discussing hypothetical events, {mu'ei} > is clearer than anything with {da'i}. > but da'i has no other use, so da'i can be made as clear (by my nonce usage...) Greg