From araizen@newmail.net Sat Apr 28 20:02:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 29 Apr 2001 03:02:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 20992 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2001 03:02:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2001 03:02:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Apr 2001 03:02:09 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.4.74] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Apr 2001 03:02:08 -0000 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 03:02:07 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Usage of logical connectives? Message-ID: <9cg07f+dbtl@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2098 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.182.108 From: "Adam Raizen" la xorxes cusku di'e > 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'm sure they weren't meant as background, but what they were meant as is so muddled that I don't think it's very relevant anymore. > >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. They're impossible to justify when they mean a cause, anyway; and any bridi can have either a "background" or a cause. In practice, I think I'll just ignore the x3. > >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. > I'm not sure what "bapli" means; I think I'll try "se randa" for "coerce". mu'o mi'e adam