From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Jun 16 14:04:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 16 Jun 2001 21:04:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 77878 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2001 21:04:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Jun 2001 21:04:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2001 21:04:33 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.252.12.205]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010616210430.IRVQ284.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:04:30 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Lessons Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:03:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <20010524111800.T17618@digitalkingdom.org> Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" Robin Lee Powell > On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 02:15:26PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > 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.". In discussions over the last decade, I've come up with clearer arguments. But I can't keep up with current traffic, and, like others, am loth to rehash the same set of arguments every couple of years. However, if someone wants to organize a kind of FAQ on logicosemantic issues for people already au fait with the Refgram, I'd be happy to contribute when time permits. --And.