From nessus@free.fr Sun Sep 29 08:34:03 2002
Return-Path: <nessus@free.fr>
X-Sender: nessus@free.fr
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 15:34:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 16489 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 15:34:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 15:34:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.23)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 15:34:02 -0000
Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007)
  id 3D760D0800DE7183; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:34:02 +0200
Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (80.9.199.215) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007)
  id 3D8011E6009C95D8; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:34:02 +0200
Message-ID: <002601c267cf$639b2b80$d7c70950@ftiq2awxk6>
To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>,
  "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
References: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMGELBGJAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [lojban] sticky hypothesis
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:45:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="Windows-1252"
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: "Lionel Vidal" <nessus@free.fr>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341
X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf

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