From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed May 02 21:40:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 3 May 2001 04:40:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 61232 invoked from network); 3 May 2001 03:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 May 2001 03:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.146) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 May 2001 03:56:10 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f433s9u01734 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 23:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 23:54:08 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14vABN-0000yK-00 for ; Wed, 02 May 2001 23:53:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 23:53:37 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Predicate logic and childhood. Message-ID: <20010502235337.A3725@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: ; from jjllambias@hotmail.com on Thu, May 03, 2001 at 01:57:49AM +0000 X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 01:57:49AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > 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. Aha, that does help clear things up. {do bazi nicygau ledo klama .ijo nu'e mi curmi lenu do klama le panka} I think that this makes {nu'e} apply to {.ijo} so that the parent promises to make {.ijo} true. > 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. This can be resolved with an attitudinal as well. {e'o do bazi nicygau ledo klama .ijo nu'e mi curmi lenu do klama le panka} I still don't exactly like {do bazi}. Is there a way to modify {ko} to make it only apply to the bridi it's in? {koku} or something of the sort? > 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. That would be good, because they're rather useless without them. -- Rob Speer