From nessus@free.fr Sun Sep 29 12:34:56 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: nessus@free.fr X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 19:34:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 99793 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 19:34:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 19:34:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.254) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 19:34:55 -0000 Received: from mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.79) by mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D89D9990056698C for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:34:54 +0200 Received: from ftiq2awxk6 (193.248.4.217) by mel-rta8.wanadoo.fr (6.5.007) id 3D8011E30098E5A9 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:34:54 +0200 Message-ID: <004101c267f1$09a235c0$d904f8c1@ftiq2awxk6> To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: sticky hypothesis Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:46:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf xorxes: > 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. So in this interpretation, {da'i} would be used for things I know false the moment I say it, and {ru'a} for things I don't know the truth value... this distinction coud indeed be useful in complex reasonning to give an hint to the reader on the forthcoming conclusion on the hypothesis validity. > >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. Interesting: after reading the book passage on causal modals, I am not sure if I can insert a {da'i} or {ru'a} in the first bridi of a construct like: {ko'a cu broda iseni'i ko'e cu brode}. As it is, I claim as non-hypothetical both members of {seni'i} and even with {da'i} or {ru'a} in first member, if the second is still claimed, the whole construct is nosense. I have the feeling that the book makes it clear that a modal sentence connection implies two claims. BTW, the fact that the book does not support the proposed use of {ru'a} is not a problem: it is grammatical, it may add a useful feature or an ease of expression without introducing any contradiction, and I am almost sure I would have guessed the purpose of the construct while first reading it (ok I may be biased here :-)} mu'omi'e lioNEL