From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Apr 26 07:34:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 26 Apr 2001 14:34:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 90775 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 14:33:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2001 14:33:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.5) by mta3 with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 14:33:04 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:33:03 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:33:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Usage of logical connectives? Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:33:03 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2001 14:33:03.0991 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD69B070:01C0CE5D] From: "Jorge Llambias" la robyspir cusku di'e > > >{ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo mi ba curmi lenu do klama > >le panka} > >The child can make the 'ko' part of it true, and then by the parent's >statement >he/she will let the child go to the park. Yes, but the child also has the option of making the first part false: "Ok, I will stay and watch TV". In fact, the child cannot make the whole statement true, it is up to the parent to make it true, because the parent's part happens later. So it is a command that the child can't really fulfill. >Unless the parent was lying, which is >not a good thing to do to your child. Whether it is good parenting or not is beside the point. The question is whether it conveys the desired meaning. The child cannot make the statement true. Whatever the child does, it is then up to the parent to make it true. So child is not being asked to do anything in particular. > > >So with the .ijo, these statements restrict each other, as such: > > >I will let you go to the park, but only if you clean your room. > > > > Or: You clean your room, but only if I let you go to the park. > >Precisely! But those two are different. In your version (obviously the one intended by the parent) the permission is a consequence of the cleaning. In the second reading, the cleaning would occur as a consequence of the permission, which is not what is meant, but {jo} allows for both. >As I pointed out, the parent could avoid this consequence of the >statement by using .ijanai, but the child should realize that .ijo is more >fair. It is not a matter of fairness or unfairness. It is a matter of which part is meant to be the cause and which the effect. Using {ijanai} does not change that. >In English a parent might word the statement more strongly as "If you don't >clean your room, I won't let you go to the park." Sure, in some mirror >universe >this could mean that the parent doesn't want the child to clean his room, >and >the child doesn't want to be allowed to go to the park, but in reality it's >clear that even in the negative the parent wants the child to clean his >room. The context is quite clear. What I am saying is that {jo} doesn't help to make it explicit, it only apparently does so if you assume that it has the cause and effect meaning which if-then has in English but that the Lojban connectives don't have. >Anyway, with your understanding of the logical connectives, I would like to >know what possible use they would have. I wouldn't go so far as to say none, but certainly they are overused as it is. The only one that we can't avoid using is the E-group (including ENAI, NA.E and NA.ENAI) but not because of their logical implications. There is hardly any difference between {ko'a broda ije ko'e broda} and {ko'a broda i ko'e broda}, but the first can be conveniently compacted to {ko'a e ko'e broda}. Had the second an equally convenient compact form, then E would also not be much needed. >You seem to want to take a fundamental >part of Lojban (they were given five out of six one-letter cmavo and a >whole >bunch of others as well; Zipf would seem to imply that the words are >important) No, Zipf says that frequent words are short, not that short words are frequent. The choice of cmavo was made a priori, it was not evolved from usage which is what Zipf would require. >and replace them with gismu which express the idea the way we would in >English. I'm not sure what you mean here. My claim is that the idea that the parent wants to express is not one that has much to do with logical connectives. It has to do with cause and effect, or rather with compliance and reward. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.