na ja ro da ...

posts: 381
Use this thread to discuss the na ja ro da ... page.
posts: 381

In a message dated 4/21/2008 04:22:30 AM Central Daylight Time,
ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:


> .i na ja ro da jmive su'o de
>
> .i lo bangu na jmive lo fadni
>
> .i xu da zo'u la .faglor. lorxu da .i xu lo samselpla ka'e lorxu
>
> mu'o mi'e .daniel.
>

lu na ja ro da li'u se smuni ma

mi'e stevon
mu'o </HTML>

posts: 381

In a message dated 4/21/2008 04:22:30 AM Central Daylight Time,
ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:


> .i na ja ro da jmive su'o de
>
> .i lo bangu na jmive lo fadni
>
> .i xu da zo'u la .faglor. lorxu da .i xu lo samselpla ka'e lorxu
>
> mu'o mi'e .daniel.
>

lu na ja ro da li'u se smuni ma

mi'e stevon
mu'o </HTML>

posts: 3588

On Apr 21, 2008, at 6:12 AM, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote:
> lu na ja ro da li'u se smuni ma

"(if ...) then everything"; "na ja" is being used as part of a
sentence connective.

(Sorry about breaking the chain of Lojban correspondence, but I wasn't
sure how else to answer this.)

mu'omi'e la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On 4/21/08, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> lu na ja ro da li'u se smuni ma
>


actually this is the wrong question :-)

what you should ask is what ".i na ja" means :-)

You may have seen the more common sentence connection: ".i je" or ".ije",
which means that both of the sentences are true. In place of the "je" you
can put another logical connection, such as "ju", whether or not, or in this
case "ja", one or the other or both. You can also put either a "na" before
the connector, to negate the first sentence, or a "nai" afterwards, to
negate the second, which allows you to construct truth tables other than the
basic four.

".i na ja" means that in every case where the first bridi is true, the
second bridi is true as well. There may however be cases where the second
bridi is true, even if the first is not. So ".i na ja" is appropriate for
situations where one thing is caused by or otherwise necessarily related to
another, but there are other causes or situations which could possibly
explain the second. For instance: It rains, .i na ja things get wet.
Rain always makes things wet, but it's not the only thing that does so.
OTOH: This is above that, .i jo that is below this. In this case, the
relation always holds, and so "o", meaning "if and only if", is more
appropriate.

do pu zi se ctuca .ai .a'o .ui ro'e .ua pei

mu'o mi'e .bret.