Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Usage of logical connectives?

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 02:37:31

la adam cusku di'e

>I hope that the x3 of words like "curmi" and "binxo" don't indicate a
>cause. If so, then "curmi" doesn't mean "let", but "would let, if x3",
>and "binxo" would mean "would become if x3", both of which are much
>less useful than a more general meaning (this particular case
>notwithstanding).

I don't think they were meant as background. As you say below
it is not clear why these gismu in particular would require
such a place. They have to be interpreted as ifs, I think,
if they are to be accepted at all. Even so, the usual meaning
can be recovered by stipulating that by default, when the place
is left unfilled, the condition is deemed to be satisfied.
So we get "x1 allows x2 (taken for granted that unmentioned
condition x3 holds) and "x1 becomes x2 (taken for granted that
unmentioned condition x3 holds).

>I think it's better to interpret these places like
>we normally would interpret the x4 and x3 (respectively) of "skari"
>and "viska", i.e. as indicating a "background" for the main bridi
>(though it's not clear why these gismu in particular need that place
>and most of the others don't).

I prefer not to give them this interpretation, because as such
they are impossible to justify.

>We need a way to express a cause as a selbrivla and as a sumti tcita.
>I used to use "va'o" for that, but that raises the question of how to
>say "I had a good time at the performance."

You are absolutely right that {va'o} has acquired a double meaning,
but I'm not prepared to let go of its most frequent one until
something better is found, and even then it will be hard to
unlearn it.

>The meaning isn't quite
>"vi" or "ca", and "mi se zdile va'o le se tigni" would work, if "va'o"
>doesn't indicate a cause. Then what to use to indicate a cause? I
>think I'll try "bapli" and "bai" for this, though it might be forcing
>it a little. :-)

The one advantage is that it is shorter, and the concept is very
frequent. But for me {bapli} already means something quite different.

>or alternatively:
>
>"i ko nicygau le kumfa pe do ja'e le nu mi zifygau do le nu klama le
>panka"

Yes, that certainly works, but I'm not changing {va'o} for {seja'e},
{va'o} is already too long as it is.

co'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.