From rob@twcny.rr.com Thu May 24 12:15:28 2001
Return-Path: <rob@twcny.rr.com>
X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 24 May 2001 19:15:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 87521 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 19:14:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 May 2001 19:14:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.121) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 May 2001 19:14:24 -0000
Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f4OJCfd13932 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 24 May 2001 15:12:41 -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 <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 24 May 2001 15:12:41 -0400
Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1530WD-0000D5-00 for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 24 May 2001 15:11:33 -0400
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 15:11:33 -0400
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: If...then, revisited
Message-ID: <20010524151133.C630@twcny.rr.com>
Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i
X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com
From: Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>

Okay. I've found the "subjunctive" thread despite yahoogroups' horrible
interface, and I see no clear arguments. In fact, it seems to be more about:

* what va'o or any "under conditions" place actually means (is it an event
that causes it to happen, or a property of the environment in which it
happens? Does it mean anything at all?)

* counterfactual statements ("If wishes were horses..." / "If I had a million
dollars...") and how to express them in Lojban (or how not to, since I haven't
seen an adequate resolution to this). Not all instances of if...then involve
counterfactual statements.

Incidentally, I'm confused. Back then, it seems Invent Yourself was on the
_other_ side of this argument...

-- 
Rob Speer


