Subject: Re: [lojban] So you think you're logical?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:43:56 EDT

In a message dated 4/25/2002 11:21:03 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> As a fan of ganai...gi... in most cases (and proponent of bai), I should
> point out that there are times in English when we say 'if' but mean either
> 'segu...gi...' or 'go...gi...', so the test is imperfect as a result of
> ambiguities in English. However, the particular questions on the test do 
> all
> assume a ganai...gi... if.
> 

The {segu... gi...} is a new one to me; could you give an example? Like 
{go... gi...}, it entails {ganai... gi...} and so may be just a slide. Other 
tests have shown, I recall, that half or more of the errors that seem to come 
from taking "if then" to mean "iff" really come from being muddled about "if 
then," that the error maker will deny things that strictly belong to "iff" 
though insisting that other "iff" features apply to a give "if" (or, 
especially, "only if"). At least Lojban cuts out that excuse.

Remind me what {bai} has to do with all of this. I can see {ri'a} for some 
cases, and various forms of {ro} with abstracts, but compulsion doesn't seem 
very iffy.

Note that the test on xorxes' site is about the application of rules, not 
strictly about truth and falsity (though related). In particular, it allows 
for cases where the rule does not apply, which are easier (it is said) to 
deal with than those where the condition is false.