From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed May 02 08:41:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 2 May 2001 15:41:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 28691 invoked from network); 2 May 2001 15:20:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 May 2001 15:20:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 May 2001 15:20:34 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 2 May 2001 16:01:46 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 02 May 2001 16:21:50 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 16:21:22 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Predicate logic and childhood. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta Rob: [...] #As I pointed out, the sumti connectives are relatively easy to find uses f= or. ok #> Anyway, it's no longer appropriate to hold up one's hands in horror #> at this or that feature of Lojban and hope that something will be #> done about it. If great swathes of Lojban are communicatively #> useless, then that's just how things are. # #But I want to know why the sentence connectives should be made communicati= vely #useless. They convey a perfectly meaningful idea. In the case of the Engli= sh #sentences we are translating, you can get the cause-and-effect meaning of = it #using the structure xorxes prefers, but you can also convey the logical #meaning. I would say that neither translation would be exactly equal to th= e #English sentence, but that both should be acceptable. Additionally, for #sentences which are not translated but created entirely in Lojban, I see n= o #reason why logic cannot be the basis of the sentence. # #The problem with {ko} is only a tangent. I believe {do bazi} would have th= e #same truth value, so perhaps use that instead. # #People seem to be implying that as soon as there is cause and effect invol= ved, #you are not allowed to use logical connectives. Not that you can choose no= t to #use them in favor of a cause-and-effect statement, but that you just can't= use #them. I have yet to see an answer to why there should not be a choice of #sentence structure. I have lost the thread, I'm afraid, and can't reconstruct what are the issu= es under debate. Would you be willing to take the trouble to recapitulate? --And.