From rob@twcny.rr.com Thu May 24 12:00:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 24 May 2001 19:00:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 3992 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 19:00:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 May 2001 19:00:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.81) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 May 2001 19:00:00 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4OIwI003211 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 14:58:18 -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 ; Thu, 24 May 2001 14:58:18 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1530IH-0000BR-00 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 14:57:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:57:09 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lessons Message-ID: <20010524145709.B630@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.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 X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer 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. I'm worried. "Subjunctive" implies to me that we're taking a natural language structure and trying to force it into Lojban, in place of a logical structure. When I last brought up this argument (over ijo/go and not ijanai/ganai), nobody actually gave a reason why "ijo" would be wrong, and it seemed to me that the consensus was that it's a matter of style what you use to connect ideas. -- Rob Speer