Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 09:39:15 EST

In a message dated 12/9/2001 5:22:35 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >and {lojdra} just doesn't fit at all (pace English -- Lord, the
> >problems that always causes in Logic classes!)
> 
> I detected some irony in the way the problem was posed and thought
> {lojdra} was the best way to reflect that. Maybe I read too much
> into it.
> 

I agree with the irony (what seemed "logical" turned out to be a disaster) 
but don't see the connection there with "logically correct." Of course, I 
also don't see how to convey the irony (an "irony" attitudinal is NOT the 
answer -- to forestall the usual suggestion).

<> > gasnu is "to make someone else do something".
> >
> > I would ahve said "to bring it about that" which does not require 
>another
>agent intermeidary (though it does suggest one);

Yes, I also glossed it as "to make something happen". The point was
just to distinguish it from English "to do", which is much better
served by {zukte}.>

In any case, {zukte} seems to be what is called for in this sentence, a 
direct agent, not merely the power behind what is happening.

<> <caku le se zukte pu simlu le ka lojdra>
>
>"Now the act seemed valid" I think the {ca} has got to be pinned down to
>something,

That will come fron the context. caku = ca zo'e = ca le nu co'e.
{caku} in general is "then", not "now"! And even more
so when the overall tense of the bridi is an explicit {pu}.>

Agreed, but does this -- in context -- pick out the releveant time or is it 
just "at sometime"? In fact, in context, I suspect that using no marker at 
all works at least as well as using {caku} to tie to the event involved 
(again, it is hard to be sure, lacking the full context). {caku} suggests 
adding a new time to the one already mentioned -- but then does not suggest 
what that new time is.

<I don't think so. I hope that the baseline doesn't say that
{caku} always means 'now'. It couldn't always work, as in
this example.>

Well, at 10.1 (216), Refgram says that sumti pu selbri and puku sumti selbri 
differ only in emphasis. And nothing is said about omitting (or 
understanding) some description after a sumtitcita but leaving the {ku}. 
Still the present case seems to be either a contradictory or an illegitmate 
case, and I don't see why it should be either.