From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 24 11:49:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 24 May 2001 18:49:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 10362 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 18:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 May 2001 18:47:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 May 2001 18:47:53 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15309I-0002vD-00 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:47:52 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:47:52 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lessons Message-ID: <20010524114752.Y17618@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <20010524111800.T17618@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: ; from xod@sixgirls.org on Thu, May 24, 2001 at 02:43:12PM -0400 From: Robin Lee Powell On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 02:43:12PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 02:15:26PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 May 2001 pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > In a message dated 5/23/2001 8:03:49 PM Central Daylight Time, > > > > nicholas@uci.edu writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > My current thinking, btw, is that forethought > > > > > connectives are not worth mentioning in an introductory course, as they > > > > > are too infrequently used. > > > > > > > > > But they are so tidy and clear as opposed to the infix ("now negate the > > > > sentence you just received") and so natural for "if" > > > > > > > > > Nick, I hope you're teaching the newbies to use "va'o" for what they think > > > "if, then" is, instead of "ganai, gi" or whatever the misleading > > > formal-logic conditional is. > > > > You might recall that not all of us agree that the formal-logic > > conditional is misleading. > > > > Those of you who felt that it was never seemed to be able to come up > > with a clearer argument then, "Well, it just is. So there.". > > No! I had no idea anybody was yet unconvinced! Please, go back and search > for "subjunctive" in the archives, and get convinced. There are very clear > arguments in there. IIRC, there were at least 2 or 3 vocal people that were unconvinced. Which archives are you referring to? -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/