Subject: Re: [lojban] sticky hypothesis

From: "Lionel Vidal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:45:43 +0200

And:
>Despite much usage to the contrary,
> it is not really a way to state conditional meaning. How about if
> you give an English example of what you would like to say, so we
> can get an idea of what you're after?

Ok. Here it is:

..... Now let's suppose the machine writes only true statements. This
means that ...... It implies that.....Furthermore....
[end of the hypothesis scope, indirectly expressed in english with the
following] But this is not what we're really after.... and so.....

I could translate each sentences in turn, but I would like to make
very clear, contrary to the english version (and to the french one
from which it originates) what is the scope of the hypothesis, as the
transition sentence may be omitted and replaced by just a paragraph
change.

xorxes:
>I think you want {ru'a} not {da'i} for this.

That may well be. I am not sure at all about the difference
between what CLL calls an assumption (for ru'a) and an
hypothesis. But as CLL tends to make {ru'a} close to {e'u},
I would rather go for {da'i} in may case.

>Since {ru'acu'i} and {ru'anai} seem to be undefined,
>how about:
>ru'a: hypothesis
>ru'acu'i: dependents of hypothesis
>ru'anai: end hypothesis

I like it! But would that mean I 'll have to repeat {ru'acu'i} in all
bridis dependent of hypothesis? I guess yes, and that is a pain,
compared to a sticky tag.

mu'omi'e lioNEL