From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Apr 30 14:48:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 30 Apr 2001 21:48:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 66077 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2001 21:48:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Apr 2001 21:48:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 30 Apr 2001 21:48:02 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14uLWU-0007QD-00 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:48:02 -0700 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:48:02 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Predicate logic and childhood. Message-ID: <20010430144802.B27753@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <20010430155318.B504@twcny.rr.com> <20010430114521.C20818@digitalkingdom.org> <20010430155318.B504@twcny.rr.com> <20010430140028.A27753@digitalkingdom.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20010430171850.00b16cd0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010430171850.00b16cd0@127.0.0.1>; from lojbab@lojban.org on Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:36:31PM -0400 From: Robin Lee Powell On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 05:36:31PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > At 02:00 PM 04/30/2001 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:53:18PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > > > Okay, I should have looked a little harder. Your C does have a 'ko' in it. > > > >Correct. Note that either ko binding stops at the .ijo, or jbofi'e has > >a bug in it. > > I believe that variable binding must continue across an .ijo boundary > because such a sentence pair can in theory be re-expressed as a single > sentence having identical meaning (subject to some special rules for > negation and the like), using gi'o or using go...gi, and the > presumption in either case would be that the ko has scope over the > entire compound bridi. Why? Once again, either your wrong or jbofi'e has a bug: go ko viska gi cusku (0[go {ko viska} gi cusku])0 And I see no indication of such scoping in the grammar, but that proves very little. Note that, IMO, you're moving the definitions in the wrong direction. IIRC, go...gi is _defined_ as a shortform for a two sentence connective. > However, missing the context that led to the current example, one > should not being using a logical connective to express this room/park > conditional, because there is time-order or causality involved. The > room being cleaned may be necessary, sufficient, preceding, or > causally determining whether the child goes to the park; the two > clauses do not in fact have independent truth values as is necessary > to use logical connectives. I disagree, because whether the child cleans eir room and whether the parent gives permission to go to the park are independent by default, but assuming you're right. Two questions, then: 1. What's the point of allowing things like .ijobabo? 2. What is the use of conditionals other than .e? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/