From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed May 02 19:54:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 3 May 2001 02:54:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 55452 invoked from network); 3 May 2001 02:00:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 May 2001 02:00:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.98) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 May 2001 02:00:47 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 May 2001 18:57:49 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.32 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 May 2001 01:57:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.32] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Predicate logic and childhood. Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 01:57:49 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2001 01:57:49.0634 (UTC) FILETIME=[74D7CA20:01C0D374] From: "Jorge Llambias" la robyspir cusku di'e >People seem to be implying that as soon as there is cause and effect >involved, >you are not allowed to use logical connectives. Not that you can choose not >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 certainly don't think that you can't use them. I only said that they are not the best translations of such sentences. The child is being told that two situations are both true or both false together, with no hint as to why that should be so. A slight improvement would be to add a {nu'e}, then at least it would be clear that the parent is saying that they're prepared to act in such a way as to make the claim true, which is a bit more informative. Then it becomes a promise/threat instead of a mere claim about reality. (Asking the child to make the claim true is not reasonable because it would mean they had to predict the future. The parent would not be lying if the ko-sentence ends up being false, the one who issues a command is not the one who has to make it true.) Even with {nu'e}, there is no hint as to which of the two possibilities the parent has a preference for. In any case, do use such constructions if you like them. If they are used like that too often, they will probably end up acquiring those causality connotations that their similars have in English. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.