From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri May 25 08:47:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 25 May 2001 15:47:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 22933 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 15:41:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 May 2001 15:41:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.121) by mta1 with SMTP; 25 May 2001 15:41:43 -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 f4PFe1d25965 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 11:40:01 -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 ; Fri, 25 May 2001 11:40:00 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 153Jfu-0000U6-00 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 11:38:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:38:50 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] if, then (was: Lessons) Message-ID: <20010525113850.A605@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <20010524233048.B1498@twcny.rr.com> 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 Fri, May 25, 2001 at 03:21:44AM -0400 X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 03:21:44AM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2001, Rob Speer wrote: > > > Okay, then we're essentially in agreement. ganai...gi and go...gi are > > legitimate ways of saying if...then as long as you're not basing it on a > > situation that is likely to be untrue. > > "likely to be untrue?" Do you want your sentence to be able to hold up > under both conditions; where the premise is true and where it's not true? > Then use va'o. If you think the premise is always true, why cast it as a > conditional? Right, I said that wrong. ganai...gi and go...gi are useful if the antecedent is a situation that has enough uncertainty whether it's true or false. If the situation is definitely true, you're just stating something rhetorically, and if the situation is definitely false (I shouldn't have said 'likely' here, but a very improbable situation like pigs flying, or wishes being horses, would count), you're not giving any useful information. Incidentally, I can't see how va'o would help. I would think that "broda va'o lenu le xarju cu vofli" would have the same problem - since "le xarju cu vofli" is false, the conditions for "broda" will never occur. This isn't the same as "na broda" because broda could occur under some other conditions. So the sentence conveys that broda might or might not happen sometime. This is the same as not saying anything at all. Even so, I don't think it was ever resolved what "va'o" means. -- Rob Speer