From pycyn@aol.com Thu Apr 25 11:51:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 25 Apr 2002 18:51:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 13123 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 18:49:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2002 18:49:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2002 18:49:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id a.179.74c0f5a (26119) for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <179.74c0f5a.29f9a86c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:43:56 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] So you think you're logical? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_179.74c0f5a.29f9a86c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_179.74c0f5a.29f9a86c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/2002 11:21:03 AM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com 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. --part1_179.74c0f5a.29f9a86c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/2002 11:21:03 AM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com 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. --part1_179.74c0f5a.29f9a86c_boundary--