Usage of logical connectives?
Robin Lee Powell
"You can go to the park if you clean your room".
Would .inaja or .ijanai be the correct way to handle this in lojban?
If not, what kind of information would one use the logical connectives
to transmit, outside of a formal proof?
-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/
Robin Lee Powell
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >Take the phrase, said by a parent to a child:
> >
> >"You can go to the park if you clean your room".
> >
> >Would .inaja or .ijanai be the correct way to handle this in lojban?
>
> clean your room and can still go to the park.
OK, let me rephrase:
Are logical connective the way that a lojbanic parent would express that
restriction?
I'm asking because it seems like the logical connectives don't add
information. If I say
mi broda .ije do brode
then you know that I believe that both of those things are true, but you
can just as easily tell me I'm wrong.
More to the point, it has nothing to do with proscription, or with
actions at all, the way the English example above does.
I just want to make sure that if I translate that sort of English
sentence with a logical connective, I'm not commiting malglico.
Jorge Llambias
la robyspir cusku di'e
>Since the truth value of a command is whether that command is carried out,
>what
>would be wrong with:
>
>ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo do kakne lenu klama le panka
Probably {mi curmi le nu do klama le panka} is better than {kakne}.
It's not that the sentence is wrong, it is just that it doesn't
really have the intended meaning. It says that the two events
are true together or false together, it does not say that the
permission to go to the park is a consequence of the child
cleaning up the room, nor that the parent wants the child
to clean up the room. It doesn't say "I want you to clean up
your room, and your recompense for doing it will be my permission
to go to the park". Maybe the English doesn't really say all that
either, maybe it only implicates it, and we can do the same
in Lojban, but then our children won't learn to think
logically... :)
co'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Rob Speer
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 12:58:59AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > >Take the phrase, said by a parent to a child:
> > > >
> > > >"You can go to the park if you clean your room".
> > > >
> > > >Would .inaja or .ijanai be the correct way to handle this in lojban?
> > >
> > > I would use .ijo, because .ijanai allows for the possibility that you don't
> > > clean your room and can still go to the park.
> >
> > OK, let me rephrase:
> >
> > Are logical connective the way that a lojbanic parent would express that
> > restriction?
> >
> > I'm asking because it seems like the logical connectives don't add
> > information. If I say
> >
> > mi broda .ije do brode
> >
> > then you know that I believe that both of those things are true, but you
> > can just as easily tell me I'm wrong.
> >
> > More to the point, it has nothing to do with proscription, or with
> > actions at all, the way the English example above does.
> >
> > I just want to make sure that if I translate that sort of English
> > sentence with a logical connective, I'm not commiting malglico.
>
>
> ka'e klama le panka.
Since the truth value of a command is whether that command is carried out, what
would be wrong with:
ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo do kakne lenu klama le panka
--
Rob Speer
Rob Speer
>
> la robyspir cusku di'e
>
> >
> >The child can make the 'ko' part of it true, and then by the parent's
> >statement
> >he/she will let the child go to the park.
>
> Yes, but the child also has the option of making the first part
> false: "Ok, I will stay and watch TV". In fact, the child cannot
> make the whole statement true, it is up to the parent to make
> it true, because the parent's part happens later. So it is a
> command that the child can't really fulfill.
If the parent wanted the child to clean his room no matter what, he/she would
have said simply 'ko nicygau ledo kumfa'. The park is obviously being offered
as an enticement.
And once again, the entire sentence is _not_ a command. Only {ko nicygau ledo
kumfa} is, and the child can fulfill that.
> >Unless the parent was lying, which is
> >not a good thing to do to your child.
>
> Whether it is good parenting or not is beside the point.
> The question is whether it conveys the desired meaning. The
> child cannot make the statement true. Whatever the child does,
> it is then up to the parent to make it true. So child is
> not being asked to do anything in particular.
The child is not being asked to do something in the original English sentence
either:
'If you clean your room, I will let you go to the park.'
He is being offered an enticement to clean his room.
> > > >So with the .ijo, these statements restrict each other, as such:
> > > >I will let you go to the park, but only if you clean your room.
> > >
> > > Or: You clean your room, but only if I let you go to the park.
> >
> >Precisely!
>
> But those two are different. In your version (obviously the
> one intended by the parent) the permission is a consequence
> of the cleaning. In the second reading, the cleaning would
> occur as a consequence of the permission, which is not what
> is meant, but {jo} allows for both.
The cleaning _is_ a consequence of the (future) permission. Since the child
had to be offered an enticement to clean his room, the promise that the parent
will let him go to the park is what presumably will motivate him to clean his
room.
> >As I pointed out, the parent could avoid this consequence of the
> >statement by using .ijanai, but the child should realize that .ijo is more
> >fair.
>
> It is not a matter of fairness or unfairness. It is a matter
> of which part is meant to be the cause and which the effect.
> Using {ijanai} does not change that.
See above.
> >In English a parent might word the statement more strongly as "If you don't
> >clean your room, I won't let you go to the park." Sure, in some mirror
> >universe
> >this could mean that the parent doesn't want the child to clean his room,
> >and
> >the child doesn't want to be allowed to go to the park, but in reality it's
> >clear that even in the negative the parent wants the child to clean his
> >room.
>
> The context is quite clear. What I am saying is that {jo} doesn't
> help to make it explicit, it only apparently does so if you assume
> that it has the cause and effect meaning which if-then has in
> English but that the Lojban connectives don't have.
They don't explicitly state which is the cause and which is the effect, but
neither does English. And they don't PREVENT there being a cause and an effect,
which seems to be what you're assuming.
> >Anyway, with your understanding of the logical connectives, I would like to
> >know what possible use they would have.
>
> I wouldn't go so far as to say none, but certainly they are
> overused as it is. The only one that we can't avoid using
> is the E-group (including ENAI, NA.E and NA.ENAI) but not
> because of their logical implications. There is hardly any
> difference between {ko'a broda ije ko'e broda} and
> {ko'a broda i ko'e broda}, but the first can be conveniently
> compacted to {ko'a e ko'e broda}. Had the second an
> equally convenient compact form, then E would also not be
> much needed.
And this is why we disagree. I see quite well that under your system, {a} and {o}
become worthless, {e} becomes nothing but a shortcut, and all that's left is
{u} which nobody uses.
> >You seem to want to take a fundamental
> >part of Lojban (they were given five out of six one-letter cmavo and a
> >whole
> >bunch of others as well; Zipf would seem to imply that the words are
> >important)
>
> No, Zipf says that frequent words are short, not that short
> words are frequent. The choice of cmavo was made a priori, it
> was not evolved from usage which is what Zipf would require.
A language evolved entirely from usage and not from planning would not be
logical. See about 10,000 years of history for examples.
> >and replace them with gismu which express the idea the way we would in
> >English.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. My claim is that the idea
> that the parent wants to express is not one that has much to
> do with logical connectives. It has to do with cause and effect,
> or rather with compliance and reward.
You seem to feel that because there is a cause and effect, they have to be
explicitly stated or else the existence of the cause and effect is denied. I
don't feel that way. In fact, I think that in a sentence like this it's
entirely valid not to state the cause and effect, because either one could be
interpreted as the cause.
--
Rob Speer
Rob Speer
>
> la robyspir cusku di'e
>
> >Since the truth value of a command is whether that command is carried out,
> >what
> >would be wrong with:
> >
> >ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo do kakne lenu klama le panka
>
> Probably {mi curmi le nu do klama le panka} is better than {kakne}.
>
> It's not that the sentence is wrong, it is just that it doesn't
> really have the intended meaning. It says that the two events
> are true together or false together, it does not say that the
> permission to go to the park is a consequence of the child
> cleaning up the room, nor that the parent wants the child
> to clean up the room. It doesn't say "I want you to clean up
> your room, and your recompense for doing it will be my permission
> to go to the park". Maybe the English doesn't really say all that
> either, maybe it only implicates it, and we can do the same
> in Lojban, but then our children won't learn to think
> logically... :)
I think it's the other way around.
If you make concise statements using the logical connections, it expresses the
concept more clearly and logically than if you bring in concepts like
"recompense", and additionally it would _assist_ the children to think
logically if things are frequently expressed in terms of logic itself.
Anyhow, what _would_ {ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo mi ba curmi lenu do klama le
panka} mean?
{ko nicygau ledo kumfa} on is a logical statement. The child may decide it to
be false {na go'i .i oi mi na djica} but the {ko} means that the parent would
like it to be true.
{mi ba curmi lenu do klama le panka} is also a statement which can be true or
false, and the child has no control over that.
So with the .ijo, these statements restrict each other, as such:
I will let you go to the park, but only if you clean your room.
If you do clean your room, I will let you go to the park.
(This creates an obligation both ways - if it turns out that there's a
thunderstorm and so the child can't go to the park, the child doesn't have to
clean his room. This is probably not the consequence the parent wants to focus
on, but a child might understand that .ijo is inherently more fair than
.ijanai.)
Certainly the fact that one event is compensation for the other is not
explicitly expressed, but I think that the relationship between the events is
so clear that it wouldn't need to be.
--
Rob Speer
Jorge Llambias
la adam cusku di'e
>I hope that the x3 of words like "curmi" and "binxo" don't indicate a
>cause. If so, then "curmi" doesn't mean "let", but "would let, if x3",
>and "binxo" would mean "would become if x3", both of which are much
>less useful than a more general meaning (this particular case
>notwithstanding).
I don't think they were meant as background. As you say below
it is not clear why these gismu in particular would require
such a place. They have to be interpreted as ifs, I think,
if they are to be accepted at all. Even so, the usual meaning
can be recovered by stipulating that by default, when the place
is left unfilled, the condition is deemed to be satisfied.
So we get "x1 allows x2 (taken for granted that unmentioned
condition x3 holds) and "x1 becomes x2 (taken for granted that
unmentioned condition x3 holds).
>I think it's better to interpret these places like
>we normally would interpret the x4 and x3 (respectively) of "skari"
>and "viska", i.e. as indicating a "background" for the main bridi
>(though it's not clear why these gismu in particular need that place
>and most of the others don't).
I prefer not to give them this interpretation, because as such
they are impossible to justify.
>We need a way to express a cause as a selbrivla and as a sumti tcita.
>I used to use "va'o" for that, but that raises the question of how to
>say "I had a good time at the performance."
You are absolutely right that {va'o} has acquired a double meaning,
but I'm not prepared to let go of its most frequent one until
something better is found, and even then it will be hard to
unlearn it.
>The meaning isn't quite
>"vi" or "ca", and "mi se zdile va'o le se tigni" would work, if "va'o"
>doesn't indicate a cause. Then what to use to indicate a cause? I
>think I'll try "bapli" and "bai" for this, though it might be forcing
>it a little. :-)
The one advantage is that it is shorter, and the concept is very
frequent. But for me {bapli} already means something quite different.
>or alternatively:
>
>"i ko nicygau le kumfa pe do ja'e le nu mi zifygau do le nu klama le
>panka"
Yes, that certainly works, but I'm not changing {va'o} for {seja'e},
{va'o} is already too long as it is.
Jorge Llambias
la robyspir cusku di'e
>And once again, the entire sentence is _not_ a command. Only {ko nicygau
>ledo
>kumfa} is, and the child can fulfill that.
We disagree about that. The sentence should be exactly
equivalent to:
go ko nicygau le do kumfa gi mi curmi le nu do klama le panka
{ko} has to apply to the entire claim, not just a fragment.
A translation with {do} instead of {ko} makes a little more
sense, even if it is still missing the direction of causality.
In any case, {mi curmi le nu do klama le panka kei le nu do
nicygau le do kumfa} is the clearest translation.
>I see quite well that under your system, {a} and {o}
>become worthless, {e} becomes nothing but a shortcut, and all that's left
>is
>{u} which nobody uses.
Actually, I use {iju} relatively often. It serves to indicate
that something is irrelevant. An attitudinal with that meaning
would probably be better though, as it could be used independently
of any other claim. I use {a} sometimes, although it is the easiest
to misuse, so I always think twice before using it. It is often
incorrect to use it for English "or".
Adam Raizen
> In any case, {mi curmi le nu do klama le panka kei le nu do
> nicygau le do kumfa} is the clearest translation.
I hope that the x3 of words like "curmi" and "binxo" don't indicate a
cause. If so, then "curmi" doesn't mean "let", but "would let, if x3",
and "binxo" would mean "would become if x3", both of which are much
less useful than a more general meaning (this particular case
notwithstanding). I think it's better to interpret these places like
we normally would interpret the x4 and x3 (respectively) of "skari"
and "viska", i.e. as indicating a "background" for the main bridi
(though it's not clear why these gismu in particular need that place
and most of the others don't).
We need a way to express a cause as a selbrivla and as a sumti tcita.
I used to use "va'o" for that, but that raises the question of how to
say "I had a good time at the performance." The meaning isn't quite
"vi" or "ca", and "mi se zdile va'o le se tigni" would work, if "va'o"
doesn't indicate a cause. Then what to use to indicate a cause? I
think I'll try "bapli" and "bai" for this, though it might be forcing
it a little. :-)
"i ko ei nicygau le pe do kumfa isebaibo mi zifygau do le nu klama le
panka"
or alternatively:
"i ko nicygau le kumfa pe do ja'e le nu mi zifygau do le nu klama le
panka"
mu'o mi'e adam
Robin Lee Powell
>
> >in English.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. My claim is that the idea that the
> parent wants to express is not one that has much to do with logical
> connectives. It has to do with cause and effect, or rather with
> compliance and reward.
So, once again (and I'm going to keep asking this until someone answers)
what use do the logical connectives have? What information do they
transmit to the listener in a normal conversation?
Value Yourself
> > > OK, so, then once again I have to ask: > > What is the use of the
> logical connectives? What information do they > transmit to the user?
>
> s/user/listener/
The others seem to provide their meaning as used by the Red Book. That I
know of, only the conditional is counter-intuitive.
------
1.Why are you measuring the measure? The measure is the same. Even after
Great One, the bones will be broken. I am telling you. Relic should believe me.
2.Where after religion you believe in religion and wish that to Ora.
Emptiness is that what Baby God's Eye is fighting for.
Pierre Abbat
>No, the parent is asking the child to make the whole statement true,
>but the child can't make it true until they know whether the parent
>will give permision or not. The child cannot make the statement true
>by their own actions.
The parent is asking the child to make the first part true. If she were asking
him to make the whole statement true, she would have said {ko klama le panka}.
phma
Value Yourself
>
> la robyspir cusku di'e
>
> > > >{ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo mi ba curmi lenu do klama > >le panka}
> >
> >The child can make the 'ko' part of it true, and then by the parent's
> >statement
> >he/she will let the child go to the park.
>
> Yes, but the child also has the option of making the first part
> false: "Ok, I will stay and watch TV". In fact, the child cannot
> make the whole statement true, it is up to the parent to make
> it true, because the parent's part happens later. So it is a
> command that the child can't really fulfill.
.i li'a sruma le du'u le verba ca'a djica tu'a le panka .iseni'ibo vy.
pu'onai cusku lu .ie mi stali gi'e viska le veltivni li'u .i mo'u le pu'u
vy. nicygau le kumfa kei le kamlogji cu bapli le nu le rirni cu curmi tu'a
le panka
> >As I pointed out, the parent could avoid this consequence of the
> >statement by using .ijanai, but the child should realize that .ijo is more
> >fair.
>
> It is not a matter of fairness or unfairness. It is a matter
> of which part is meant to be the cause and which the effect.
> Using {ijanai} does not change that.
.i ru'axu do selfanza le za'i di'u claxu le ka porsi le temci .i pe'i lu
remei po'o li'u banzu le nu cusku
.i ru'a go lu ganai li'u smuni da poi fadni le ka glico gi jimpe le du'u
djica de
Value Yourself
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 12:58:59AM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > >Take the phrase, said by a parent to a child:
> > >
> > >"You can go to the park if you clean your room".
> > >
> > >Would .inaja or .ijanai be the correct way to handle this in lojban?
> >
> > I would use .ijo, because .ijanai allows for the possibility that you don't
> > clean your room and can still go to the park.
>
> OK, let me rephrase:
>
> Are logical connective the way that a lojbanic parent would express that
> restriction?
>
> I'm asking because it seems like the logical connectives don't add
> information. If I say
>
> mi broda .ije do brode
>
> then you know that I believe that both of those things are true, but you
> can just as easily tell me I'm wrong.
>
> More to the point, it has nothing to do with proscription, or with
> actions at all, the way the English example above does.
>
> I just want to make sure that if I translate that sort of English
> sentence with a logical connective, I'm not commiting malglico.
What you really want to say is va'o le mu'e do nicygau le do kumfa kei do
ka'e klama le panka.
(I'm not really interested in reading discussion of whether ka'e is
appropriate or not, actually.)
The logical naja doesn't do the trick. For more info, you can read the
thread called "subjunctive", which includes
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/1837>
Jorge Llambias
la robyspir cusku di'e
> > >{ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo mi ba curmi lenu do klama > >le panka}
>
>The child can make the 'ko' part of it true, and then by the parent's
>statement
>he/she will let the child go to the park.
Yes, but the child also has the option of making the first part
false: "Ok, I will stay and watch TV". In fact, the child cannot
make the whole statement true, it is up to the parent to make
it true, because the parent's part happens later. So it is a
command that the child can't really fulfill.
>Unless the parent was lying, which is
>not a good thing to do to your child.
Whether it is good parenting or not is beside the point.
The question is whether it conveys the desired meaning. The
child cannot make the statement true. Whatever the child does,
it is then up to the parent to make it true. So child is
not being asked to do anything in particular.
> > >So with the .ijo, these statements restrict each other, as such:
> > >I will let you go to the park, but only if you clean your room.
> >
> > Or: You clean your room, but only if I let you go to the park.
>
>Precisely!
But those two are different. In your version (obviously the
one intended by the parent) the permission is a consequence
of the cleaning. In the second reading, the cleaning would
occur as a consequence of the permission, which is not what
is meant, but {jo} allows for both.
>As I pointed out, the parent could avoid this consequence of the
>statement by using .ijanai, but the child should realize that .ijo is more
>fair.
It is not a matter of fairness or unfairness. It is a matter
of which part is meant to be the cause and which the effect.
Using {ijanai} does not change that.
>In English a parent might word the statement more strongly as "If you don't
>clean your room, I won't let you go to the park." Sure, in some mirror
>universe
>this could mean that the parent doesn't want the child to clean his room,
>and
>the child doesn't want to be allowed to go to the park, but in reality it's
>clear that even in the negative the parent wants the child to clean his
>room.
The context is quite clear. What I am saying is that {jo} doesn't
help to make it explicit, it only apparently does so if you assume
that it has the cause and effect meaning which if-then has in
English but that the Lojban connectives don't have.
>Anyway, with your understanding of the logical connectives, I would like to
>know what possible use they would have.
I wouldn't go so far as to say none, but certainly they are
overused as it is. The only one that we can't avoid using
is the E-group (including ENAI, NA.E and NA.ENAI) but not
because of their logical implications. There is hardly any
difference between {ko'a broda ije ko'e broda} and
{ko'a broda i ko'e broda}, but the first can be conveniently
compacted to {ko'a e ko'e broda}. Had the second an
equally convenient compact form, then E would also not be
much needed.
>You seem to want to take a fundamental
>part of Lojban (they were given five out of six one-letter cmavo and a
>whole
>bunch of others as well; Zipf would seem to imply that the words are
>important)
No, Zipf says that frequent words are short, not that short
words are frequent. The choice of cmavo was made a priori, it
was not evolved from usage which is what Zipf would require.
>and replace them with gismu which express the idea the way we would in
>English.
I'm not sure what you mean here. My claim is that the idea
that the parent wants to express is not one that has much to
do with logical connectives. It has to do with cause and effect,
or rather with compliance and reward.
co'o mi'e xorxes
Value Yourself
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:33:03PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >
> > la robyspir cusku di'e
> > >and replace them with gismu which express the idea the way we would
> > >in English.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean here. My claim is that the idea that the
> > parent wants to express is not one that has much to do with logical
> > connectives. It has to do with cause and effect, or rather with
> > compliance and reward.
>
> So, once again (and I'm going to keep asking this until someone answers)
> what use do the logical connectives have? What information do they
> transmit to the listener in a normal conversation?
ko na jinvi le du'u ro logji jorne cmavo goi ko'a cu mintu
Pierre Abbat
>Take the phrase, said by a parent to a child:
>
>"You can go to the park if you clean your room".
>
>Would .inaja or .ijanai be the correct way to handle this in lojban?
I would use .ijo, because .ijanai allows for the possibility that you don't
clean your room and can still go to the park.
phma
Robin Lee Powell
> thread called "subjunctive", which includes
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/1837>
Then this leads back to the other question:
What kind of information could you usefully use the logical connectives
to convey in normal, everyday speech?
Robin Lee Powell
>
>
> >Since the truth value of a command is whether that command is carried out,
> >what
> >would be wrong with:
> >
> >ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo do kakne lenu klama le panka
>
> Probably {mi curmi le nu do klama le panka} is better than {kakne}.
>
> It's not that the sentence is wrong, it is just that it doesn't
> really have the intended meaning. It says that the two events
> are true together or false together, it does not say that the
> permission to go to the park is a consequence of the child
> cleaning up the room, nor that the parent wants the child
> to clean up the room. It doesn't say "I want you to clean up
> your room, and your recompense for doing it will be my permission
> to go to the park". Maybe the English doesn't really say all that
> either, maybe it only implicates it, and we can do the same
> in Lojban, but then our children won't learn to think
> logically... :)
OK, so, then once again I have to ask:
What is the use of the logical connectives? What information do they
transmit to the user?
Robin Lee Powell
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:33:03PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > >
> > > la robyspir cusku di'e
> > > >and replace them with gismu which express the idea the way we would
> > > >in English.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you mean here. My claim is that the idea that the
> > > parent wants to express is not one that has much to do with logical
> > > connectives. It has to do with cause and effect, or rather with
> > > compliance and reward.
> >
> > So, once again (and I'm going to keep asking this until someone answers)
> > what use do the logical connectives have? What information do they
> > transmit to the listener in a normal conversation?
>
>
> ko na jinvi le du'u ro logji jorne cmavo goi ko'a cu mintu
je'e.
What's your point?
Rob Speer
>
> la robyspir cusku di'e
>
> >And once again, the entire sentence is _not_ a command. Only {ko nicygau
> >ledo
> >kumfa} is, and the child can fulfill that.
>
> We disagree about that. The sentence should be exactly
> equivalent to:
>
> go ko nicygau le do kumfa gi mi curmi le nu do klama le panka
>
> {ko} has to apply to the entire claim, not just a fragment.
> A translation with {do} instead of {ko} makes a little more
> sense, even if it is still missing the direction of causality.
If {ko} doesn't stop applying at {.i} (my sentence used .ijo), then where the
heck does the {ko} finally lose its effect? That would mean that, having said
{ko} any time in a discourse, it would no longer be possible to state facts!
> In any case, {mi curmi le nu do klama le panka kei le nu do
> nicygau le do kumfa} is the clearest translation.
Good point. We should be discussing a sentence which is not so easily solved by
a place structure.
> >I see quite well that under your system, {a} and {o}
> >become worthless, {e} becomes nothing but a shortcut, and all that's left
> >is
> >{u} which nobody uses.
>
> Actually, I use {iju} relatively often. It serves to indicate
> that something is irrelevant. An attitudinal with that meaning
> would probably be better though, as it could be used independently
> of any other claim.
I guess that's a good use for {iju}. I suppose you could even use it in the
absence of any other claim, because it would attach to some previous Lojban
utterance you said or heard without affecting its meaning.
> I use {a} sometimes, although it is the easiest
> to misuse, so I always think twice before using it. It is often
> incorrect to use it for English "or".
Right, because English "or" is {onai}. However, under your system, can you
really use {onai}? Wouldn't you have to explicitly state what cause there is
that you can't choose both, or neither? The same applies to {a} without the
"both" part. You used this reasoning for {.ijanai}, remember.
--
Rob Speer
Robin Lee Powell
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 12:50:43AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> >
> > la robyspir cusku di'e
> >
> > >Since the truth value of a command is whether that command is carried out,
> > >what
> > >would be wrong with:
> > >
> > >ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo do kakne lenu klama le panka
> >
> > Probably {mi curmi le nu do klama le panka} is better than {kakne}.
> >
> > It's not that the sentence is wrong, it is just that it doesn't
> > really have the intended meaning. It says that the two events
> > are true together or false together, it does not say that the
> > permission to go to the park is a consequence of the child
> > cleaning up the room, nor that the parent wants the child
> > to clean up the room. It doesn't say "I want you to clean up
> > your room, and your recompense for doing it will be my permission
> > to go to the park". Maybe the English doesn't really say all that
> > either, maybe it only implicates it, and we can do the same
> > in Lojban, but then our children won't learn to think
> > logically... :)
>
> OK, so, then once again I have to ask:
>
> What is the use of the logical connectives? What information do they
> transmit to the user?
s/user/listener/
Rob Speer
>
> la robyspir cusku di'e
>
> >le
> >panka} mean?
> >
> >{ko nicygau ledo kumfa} on is a logical statement. The child may decide it
> >to
> >be false {na go'i .i oi mi na djica} but the {ko} means that the parent
> >would
> >like it to be true.
>
> but the child can't make it true until they know whether the parent
> will give permision or not. The child cannot make the statement true
> by their own actions.
The child can make the 'ko' part of it true, and then by the parent's statement
he/she will let the child go to the park. Unless the parent was lying, which is
not a good thing to do to your child.
> >{mi ba curmi lenu do klama le panka} is also a statement which can be true
> >or
> >false, and the child has no control over that.
>
> Exactly, so how can the child make the statement true without
> knowing what the parent will do?
Because most children do not assume their parents are liars.
> >So with the .ijo, these statements restrict each other, as such:
> >I will let you go to the park, but only if you clean your room.
>
> Or: You clean your room, but only if I let you go to the park.
Precisely! As I pointed out, the parent could avoid this consequence of the
statement by using .ijanai, but the child should realize that .ijo is more
fair. If you really believe that the parent wants to make the child clean his
room and then not let him go to the park anyway, then consider the same
sentence with .ijanai instead of .ijo.
> >If you do clean your room, I will let you go to the park.
>
> If I don't let you go to the park, don't clean your room.
Which is the contrapositive of above.
> >(This creates an obligation both ways - if it turns out that there's a
> >thunderstorm and so the child can't go to the park, the child doesn't have
> >to
> >clean his room. This is probably not the consequence the parent wants to
> >focus
> >on, but a child might understand that .ijo is inherently more fair than
> >.ijanai.)
>
> The parent can just say: {ko nicygau ledo kumfa .i mi ba curmi
> lenu do klama le panka} "You clean your room, I let you go to
> the park." That is just as effective to create an obligation
> both ways, and it makes much more sense because it is clear.
> The "contractual" implication is present or absent as much as
> in the {jo} case, and the child need not guess that the parent
> wants both halves to be true rather than both false. Even if
> it is obvious that that is what the parent wants, {jo} does not
> help to make it clear.
In English a parent might word the statement more strongly as "If you don't
clean your room, I won't let you go to the park." Sure, in some mirror universe
this could mean that the parent doesn't want the child to clean his room, and
the child doesn't want to be allowed to go to the park, but in reality it's
clear that even in the negative the parent wants the child to clean his room.
If you use .i, the statements are completely independent. If the child doesn't
clean his room, he's a bad child for not doing so, but then the parent's
already promised to let him go to the park anyway.
> >Certainly the fact that one event is compensation for the other is not
> >explicitly expressed, but I think that the relationship between the events
> >is
> >so clear that it wouldn't need to be.
>
> Right, so what does {jo} do other than obfuscate and allow
> for unwanted possibilities? The relationship betwen the events
> is even more clear without it.
Are you saying your version with ".i" is more clear?
Anyway, with your understanding of the logical connectives, I would like to
know what possible use they would have. You seem to want to take a fundamental
part of Lojban (they were given five out of six one-letter cmavo and a whole
bunch of others as well; Zipf would seem to imply that the words are important)
and replace them with gismu which express the idea the way we would in English.
--
Rob Speer
Adam Raizen
>
> >I hope that the x3 of words like "curmi" and "binxo" don't indicate
a
> >cause. If so, then "curmi" doesn't mean "let", but "would let, if
x3",
> >and "binxo" would mean "would become if x3", both of which are much
> >less useful than a more general meaning (this particular case
> >notwithstanding).
>
> I don't think they were meant as background. As you say below
> it is not clear why these gismu in particular would require
> such a place. They have to be interpreted as ifs, I think,
> if they are to be accepted at all. Even so, the usual meaning
> can be recovered by stipulating that by default, when the place
> is left unfilled, the condition is deemed to be satisfied.
> So we get "x1 allows x2 (taken for granted that unmentioned
> condition x3 holds) and "x1 becomes x2 (taken for granted that
> unmentioned condition x3 holds).
I'm sure they weren't meant as background, but what they were meant as
is so muddled that I don't think it's very relevant anymore.
> >I think it's better to interpret these places like
> >we normally would interpret the x4 and x3 (respectively) of "skari"
> >and "viska", i.e. as indicating a "background" for the main bridi
> >(though it's not clear why these gismu in particular need that
place
> >and most of the others don't).
>
> I prefer not to give them this interpretation, because as such
> they are impossible to justify.
They're impossible to justify when they mean a cause, anyway; and any
bridi can have either a "background" or a cause. In practice, I think
I'll just ignore the x3.
> >The meaning isn't quite
> >"vi" or "ca", and "mi se zdile va'o le se tigni" would work, if
"va'o"
> >doesn't indicate a cause. Then what to use to indicate a cause? I
> >think I'll try "bapli" and "bai" for this, though it might be
forcing
> >it a little. :-)
>
> The one advantage is that it is shorter, and the concept is very
> frequent. But for me {bapli} already means something quite
different.
>
I'm not sure what "bapli" means; I think I'll try "se randa" for
"coerce".
Jorge Llambias
la robyspir cusku di'e
>Anyhow, what _would_ {ko nicygau ledo kumfa .ijo mi ba curmi lenu do klama
>le
>panka} mean?
>
>{ko nicygau ledo kumfa} on is a logical statement. The child may decide it
>to
>be false {na go'i .i oi mi na djica} but the {ko} means that the parent
>would
>like it to be true.
No, the parent is asking the child to make the whole statement true,
but the child can't make it true until they know whether the parent
will give permision or not. The child cannot make the statement true
by their own actions.
>{mi ba curmi lenu do klama le panka} is also a statement which can be true
>or
>false, and the child has no control over that.
Exactly, so how can the child make the statement true without
knowing what the parent will do?
>So with the .ijo, these statements restrict each other, as such:
>I will let you go to the park, but only if you clean your room.
Or: You clean your room, but only if I let you go to the park.
>If you do clean your room, I will let you go to the park.
If I don't let you go to the park, don't clean your room.
You are assuming that cleaning the room is the cause and letting
the child go to the park is the consequence, but there is nothing
in {jo} to indicate that. Nothing says one follows from the other.
They might be independent events.
>(This creates an obligation both ways - if it turns out that there's a
>thunderstorm and so the child can't go to the park, the child doesn't have
>to
>clean his room. This is probably not the consequence the parent wants to
>focus
>on, but a child might understand that .ijo is inherently more fair than
>.ijanai.)
The parent can just say: {ko nicygau ledo kumfa .i mi ba curmi
lenu do klama le panka} "You clean your room, I let you go to
the park." That is just as effective to create an obligation
both ways, and it makes much more sense because it is clear.
The "contractual" implication is present or absent as much as
in the {jo} case, and the child need not guess that the parent
wants both halves to be true rather than both false. Even if
it is obvious that that is what the parent wants, {jo} does not
help to make it clear.
>Certainly the fact that one event is compensation for the other is not
>explicitly expressed, but I think that the relationship between the events
>is
>so clear that it wouldn't need to be.
Right, so what does {jo} do other than obfuscate and allow
for unwanted possibilities? The relationship betwen the events
is even more clear without it.
co'o mi'e xorxes
Jorge Llambias
la robyspir cusku di'e
>If {ko} doesn't stop applying at {.i} (my sentence used .ijo), then where
>the
>heck does the {ko} finally lose its effect? That would mean that, having
>said
>{ko} any time in a discourse, it would no longer be possible to state
>facts!
No, that's not it. {broda i brode} has two truth values.
If {ko} were to appear in one of those sentences then the
command would require to make that sentence true, it only
refers to that one truth value.
But {broda ijo brode}, or any other logical connective, has
only one truth value. A {ko} appearing in one of the bridi requires
that the whole thing be true, not just that one bridi. So {ko}
stops wherever the logical connection stops.
> > I use {a} sometimes, although it is the easiest
> > to misuse, so I always think twice before using it. It is often
> > incorrect to use it for English "or".
>
>Right, because English "or" is {onai}.
I was thinking of other "or"s: ji'i, ji, jikau, e, and who knows
what else. I wouldn't say {onai} is more frequent than {a} as
a meaning for "or".
>However, under your system, can you
>really use {onai}?
I can, but I don't think I ever use it, no.
>Wouldn't you have to explicitly state what cause there is
>that you can't choose both, or neither?
A choice would require {ji} or {jikau}. What type of
choice do you have in mind that would use {onai}?
i do zmanei lo'e tcati ji lo'e ckafi
Do you prefer tea or coffee?
>The same applies to {a} without the
>"both" part. You used this reasoning for {.ijanai}, remember.
Of course. Think twice before using {a} or {o}, and then try
not to, that's what I do.