From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Sep 29 10:21:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 17:21:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 38284 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 17:21:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 17:21:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.15) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 17:21:40 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:21:40 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.30 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:21:40 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: sticky hypothesis Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:21:40 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2002 17:21:40.0857 (UTC) FILETIME=[ACC0AE90:01C267DC] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.30] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la djorden cusku di'e >[...] > > 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. > >I think this is most certainly a proper use for {da'i}. Much of >the anti-da'i-ism seems to be largely caused by a sort of agenda >to get one's own useless experimental cmavo to be used (in this >case mu'ei). No agenda, I assure you. Even though I don't dislike {mu'ei}, it is not my experimental cmavo. Besides, I use {da'i} much more than I ever use {ru'a}, so it is hardly anti-da'i-ism on my part. Having said that, I don't have very clear the distinction between {da'i} and {ru'a}. Do you? The kind of thing I'm thinking is that {ru'a} asks the listener to consider what is said as if it were part of the real world, whereas {da'i} marks it as not part of the real world and not to be taken as such. For example: ru'a la djan zvati la paris i ru'acu'i ju'o dy penmi la meris i ru'anai my zvati py Let's assume John is in Paris. In that case, surely he met Mary. She is there (independently of our hypothesis). da'i la djan zvati la paris i da'i ju'o dy penmi la meris i da'inai my zvati py John would be in Paris (but isn't). He would surely meet Mary. She is there. I'm just throwing ideas, I don't really know what the distinction between da'i and ru'a is. How do you see the distinction? >I don't like this. ru'anai doesn't end the hypothesis, it says >that whatever it is attached to is not assumption. That's a way of ending the hypothesis. >Text scope was >invented for this; you should use a modal tag + tu'e ... tu'u for >the whole block, pe'i. The book doesn't support this (ab)use of ru'a. But there is a distinction to be made between a hypothesis and what follows from a hypothesis, which is not additionally hypothesized, but is not non-hypothetical either. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com