From rob@twcny.rr.com Thu Apr 26 23:39:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 27 Apr 2001 06:39:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 20927 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2001 06:39:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Apr 2001 06:39:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.168) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 06:39:15 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f3R6b9026693 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 02:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.122]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 02:37:08 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14t1ru-0002PD-00 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 02:36:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 02:36:41 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Usage of logical connectives? Message-ID: <20010427023641.B6700@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: ; from jjllambias@hotmail.com on Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:58:01PM +0000 X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:58:01PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la robyspir cusku di'e > > >And once again, the entire sentence is _not_ a command. Only {ko nicygau > >ledo > >kumfa} is, and the child can fulfill that. > > We disagree about that. The sentence should be exactly > equivalent to: > > go ko nicygau le do kumfa gi mi curmi le nu do klama le panka > > {ko} has to apply to the entire claim, not just a fragment. > A translation with {do} instead of {ko} makes a little more > sense, even if it is still missing the direction of causality. If {ko} doesn't stop applying at {.i} (my sentence used .ijo), then where the heck does the {ko} finally lose its effect? That would mean that, having said {ko} any time in a discourse, it would no longer be possible to state facts! > In any case, {mi curmi le nu do klama le panka kei le nu do > nicygau le do kumfa} is the clearest translation. Good point. We should be discussing a sentence which is not so easily solved by a place structure. > >I see quite well that under your system, {a} and {o} > >become worthless, {e} becomes nothing but a shortcut, and all that's left > >is > >{u} which nobody uses. > > Actually, I use {iju} relatively often. It serves to indicate > that something is irrelevant. An attitudinal with that meaning > would probably be better though, as it could be used independently > of any other claim. I guess that's a good use for {iju}. I suppose you could even use it in the absence of any other claim, because it would attach to some previous Lojban utterance you said or heard without affecting its meaning. > I use {a} sometimes, although it is the easiest > to misuse, so I always think twice before using it. It is often > incorrect to use it for English "or". Right, because English "or" is {onai}. However, under your system, can you really use {onai}? Wouldn't you have to explicitly state what cause there is that you can't choose both, or neither? The same applies to {a} without the "both" part. You used this reasoning for {.ijanai}, remember. -- Rob Speer