From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Oct 02 17:40:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 3 Oct 2002 00:40:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 22553 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 00:40:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 00:40:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 00:40:33 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17wu5j-0007ee-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:43:47 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wu57-0007dr-00; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:43:09 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-7.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.107]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wu50-0007d0-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:43:02 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-80.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.80]) by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E34226D29 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 02:39:15 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: sticky hypothesis Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 01:40:53 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20020929161022.GC50774@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 1846 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jordan DeLong > [...] > > 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). It would not seem so to you if you were capable of digesting the arguments adduced. I don't know what your problem is; it strikes me as essentially attentional, since you do seem to understand things that you put your mind to. > > >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. > > I don't like this. ru'anai doesn't end the hypothesis, it says > that whatever it is attached to is not assumption. 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 I agree with you here, fwiw. --And.