From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Apr 20 09:34:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 20 Apr 2001 16:34:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 71491 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2001 16:34:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Apr 2001 16:34:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Apr 2001 16:34:25 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.248]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010420154822.NVKN283.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:48:22 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] A or B depending on C Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:47:28 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > >This was discussed about 18 months ago: "What i have for dinner depends > >on what's in the fridge". It generalizes to your case: "Which of > >{A, B} is true depends on what is C". > > Right! Did we find a good word for "x1 depends on x2"? I can't remember. Perhaps a more talented archive-grepper than me could check. > I can't think of anything right now. Would {jalge} work? > For example: > > le du'u abu jikau by broda cu jalge le du'u xukau cy brode > "Whether A or B broda results from whether C brode." To me, the arguments of jalge should be events, not propositions. > >My brain died before that thread was resolved, but iirc you > >were happy to handle it as "le du'u Q kau broda kei depends-on > >le du'u Q kau brode". > > It still sounds good, but of course we are still missing > a full logical explanation of {kau}, which is another UI > that mucks around with truth values. At least here we have the excuse that nobody can figure out a sufficiently general explicit logical analysis of interrogatives, and nobody has had the time, inclination or competence to track down and digest the logical and linguistic literature, doctoral dissertations, etc., on the topic. This is in marked contrast to the likes of most other UI that {f|m}uck about with truth values, which are UI because the Powers that Be couldn't be arsed to insist on maximal homomorphism between grammatical and logical structure. --And.