WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page unless changed

posts: 2388
Use this thread to discuss the Wiki page unless changed page.
posts: 2388



> The short version: the English
> "unless" can be translated directly
> with an "or" construct and
> "da'i", such as "da broda gi'a
> da'i brode", if both cases can happen
> at the same time. If not, you need an
> "xor" construct instead
> ("gi'onai" in this case).

>
> The long version: In analyzing
> "unless", it is helpful to have an
> example. For the "both can happen at the
> same time" case, we'll use "I have
> blue hair, unless my eyes are bad". The
> translation is "le kerfa be mi cu blanu .i
> ja bo da'i le kanla be mi cu spofu".
>
> Call the former "BH" for blue hair,
> and the latter "EB" for "eyes
> are bad".
>
> Truth table:
>

>
> BH EB BH or EB Explanation
> T T T You have blue hair. It is
> also the case that your eyes are bad, however.
> T F T You have blue hair, and
> your eyes are just fine
> F T T Your eyes are bad, and
> your hair is not, in fact, blue.
> F F F The only false case: if
> you do not have blue hair, but your eyes are
> just fine, the original statement is false.
>

>
> For the "both cannot happen at the
> same time" case, we'll use "I'll kill
> you, unless you kill me first". Note that
> because of the word "first", both
> halves cannot be true at once. The translation
> is "mi ba catra do .i jo nai bo da'i do
> catra mi pu la'e di'u".
>
> Call the former "KY" for kill you,
> and the latter "KMF" for "kill
> me first".
>
> Truth table:
>
> ||
> KY | KMF| KY or KMF| Explanation
> T | T | F | False case: I killed you,
> and you killed me first. Patently
> impossible.
> T | F | T | I killed you.
> F | T | T | You killed me first.
> F | F | F | False case: Nobody killed
> anybody, which violates the whole point of
> making the statement in the first place.

What is the function of the {da'i} here? The
whole is taken to be truth functional (see the
tables) so movement into the subjunctive (more or
less)apparently play no role. Presumably the
{da'i} comes from the conceptually underlying
conditional nature of "unless" ("this if not
that") and (we often say) real conditionals are
subjunctive. But this seems to be a genuinely
truth functional use. I would welcome convincing
cases to the contrary, but don't have one so far
(of course, "convincing" may be the problem,
since what convinces one person may not convince
others; but I can't find a case which is even
claimed to be subjunctive in my — woefully
incomplete — files).


posts: 14214

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 05:26:14PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
> and (we often say) real conditionals are subjunctive. But this
> seems to be a genuinely truth functional use.

Uhh, if "My hair is blue, unless my eyes are bad" doesn't imply that
the second clause is subjunctive (the speaker doesn't actually think
his eyes are bad), you and I speak very different dialects of
English.

-Robin


posts: 2388


<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 05:26:14PM -0800, John
> E Clifford wrote:
> > and (we often say) real conditionals are
> subjunctive. But this
> > seems to be a genuinely truth functional use.
>
>
> Uhh, if "My hair is blue, unless my eyes are
> bad" doesn't imply that
> the second clause is subjunctive (the speaker
> doesn't actually think
> his eyes are bad), you and I speak very
> different dialects of
> English.
>
> -Robin

Well, it may imply that (better implicate that,
since it is a pragmatic kind of compulsion), but
that doesn't make it subjunctive. It still works
as a truth functional claim (as your tables
show): presumably as an emphatic form of "My hair
is blue." (I'm not sure it need function in that
way, but am considering the case where it does.)
This differs from the subjunctive cases, where we
want to say that a claim is true — or false --
even though the truth functional conditions do
not apply (false conditionals with false
antecedents, for example). A disjunction with a
(implicitly) false disjunct is
non-problematically true, provided that the other
disjunct is.


posts: 1912


In Spanish, the equivalent construct "X a menos que Y",
always requires Y to be put in the subjunctive mood.

I'm not convinced "unless" can be a purely truth
conditional OR. I don't want to say that
"I am mortal, unless you are mortal" is true,
even though "I am mortal OR you are mortal" is.

"Unless" would seem to require its complement to be
either false or very unlikely/exceptional.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com




posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> In Spanish, the equivalent construct "X a menos
> que Y",
> always requires Y to be put in the subjunctive
> mood.

This is virtually automatic with a subordinate
"que" clause; whether it is significant is harder
to tell (as is whether that significance carries
over to English, where the corresonding sentence
is not subjunctive — or not unequivocally so).
And, of course, that also does not speak to the
logical — thus Lojban — situation.


> I'm not convinced "unless" can be a purely
> truth
> conditional OR. I don't want to say that
> "I am mortal, unless you are mortal" is true,
> even though "I am mortal OR you are mortal" is.
>
Yes, there does seem to be something else than
simple OR going one. As noted, I suspect it is
pragmatic — but that doesn't relieve us of the
need to figure out what it is and display it.

> "Unless" would seem to require its complement
> to be either false or very unlikely /
exceptional.

This seems to be in the right direction,
corresponding to the emphatic negative
conditional "If he did it, I'll eat my hat." =
"He definitely didn't do it" and the like.

I'm not sure what you mean by "complement,"
appparently the sentence after the "unless"? But
that doesn't seem to fit the usual cases: "He
will come unless he gets caught in traffic" which
is neither obviously false nor even unlikely but
merely setting up an explanation in case the
other sentence turns out to be false.

What does seem to be the case is that there are
two uses of "unless," one purely factual, the
other with an added fillip, presumably the same
one that occurs also (though in a negative
presentation) in the conditional cited above,
emphasizing the truth (or falsity) of one factor
by the obvious falsity of the other. I think
this is much less common with "unless" than "if"
but the underlying mechanism is the same, truth
functionality (whether MTT or MTP) and trivial
falseness of one component. But none of this is
subjunctive or contrary-to-fact, just a pragmatic cuteness.


posts: 1912


pc:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "complement,"
> appparently the sentence after the "unless"? But
> that doesn't seem to fit the usual cases: "He
> will come unless he gets caught in traffic" which
> is neither obviously false nor even unlikely but
> merely setting up an explanation in case the
> other sentence turns out to be false.

"He will come" is the default case, "he gets caught
in traffic" is the exceptional case. In the default
world/situation, he comes. In other than the default
world, it may be the case that he gets caught in
traffic and does not come.

The sentence does not mean the same as "he will get
caught in traffic unless he comes", so plain OR won't
do it.

> What does seem to be the case is that there are
> two uses of "unless," one purely factual, the
> other with an added fillip, presumably the same
> one that occurs also (though in a negative
> presentation) in the conditional cited above,
> emphasizing the truth (or falsity) of one factor
> by the obvious falsity of the other.

Yes, and both "if" and "unless" in the non-emphasis
case usually carry an additional component of causality
which is absent in the purely truth functional connective.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com




posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "complement,"
> > appparently the sentence after the "unless"?
> But
> > that doesn't seem to fit the usual cases: "He
> > will come unless he gets caught in traffic"
> which
> > is neither obviously false nor even unlikely
> but
> > merely setting up an explanation in case the
> > other sentence turns out to be false.
>
> "He will come" is the default case, "he gets
> caught
> in traffic" is the exceptional case. In the
> default
> world/situation, he comes. In other than the
> default
> world, it may be the case that he gets caught
> in
> traffic and does not come.
>
> The sentence does not mean the same as "he will
> get
> caught in traffic unless he comes", so plain OR
> won't
> do it.

Yes; some mark for the "exceptional" case (just
less common or less what is desired or expected)
is needed. the point is always just tht it is
not {da'i}. I think the use of worlds talk here
is taking things a bit too far, unless you want
different occasions to be different worlds even
though both may be in the real world.
>
> > What does seem to be the case is that there
> are
> > two uses of "unless," one purely factual, the
> > other with an added fillip, presumably the
> same
> > one that occurs also (though in a negative
> > presentation) in the conditional cited above,
> > emphasizing the truth (or falsity) of one
> factor
> > by the obvious falsity of the other.
>
> Yes, and both "if" and "unless" in the
> non-emphasis
> case usually carry an additional component of
> causality
> which is absent in the purely truth functional
> connective.

Is the causal factor semantic or merely
pragmatic? In any case, something should be said
to mark off the unemphatic case.


posts: 84

Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

>In Spanish, the equivalent construct "X a menos que Y",
>always requires Y to be put in the subjunctive mood.
>
>I'm not convinced "unless" can be a purely truth
>conditional OR. I don't want to say that
>"I am mortal, unless you are mortal" is true,
>even though "I am mortal OR you are mortal" is.
>
>"Unless" would seem to require its complement to be
>either false or very unlikely/exceptional.
>
>
Why? Sure, you *can* use "unless" that way. But it's also quite
commonly used to mean "if not..."

There'll be a game on Thursday, unless it rains. (not necessarily very
unlikely!)

Fill out form XJ912/3 unless you have already filed waiver 99234.
(perfectly likely)

other examples abound. I don't see extreme unlikeliness any more
implied in "unless" than it is in "if".

~mark



posts: 14214

On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:06:49PM -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Jorge "Llamb??as" wrote:
>
> >In Spanish, the equivalent construct "X a menos que Y", always
> >requires Y to be put in the subjunctive mood.
> >
> >I'm not convinced "unless" can be a purely truth conditional OR.
> >I don't want to say that "I am mortal, unless you are mortal" is
> >true, even though "I am mortal OR you are mortal" is.
> >
> >"Unless" would seem to require its complement to be either false
> >or very unlikely/exceptional.
>
>
> Why? Sure, you *can* use "unless" that way. But it's also quite
> commonly used to mean "if not..."
>
> There'll be a game on Thursday, unless it rains. (not necessarily very
> unlikely!)

Re-read what he said again: Either false *OR* exceptional.

This started because I insisted that "da'i" should be used for the
second half of the clause, because it may or may not have happened
or ever happen. PC argued, and xorxes got in to it with him.

-Robin


posts: 2388


<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:06:49PM -0500, Mark
> E. Shoulson wrote:
> > Jorge "Llamb??as" wrote:
> >
> > >In Spanish, the equivalent construct "X a
> menos que Y", always
> > >requires Y to be put in the subjunctive
> mood.
> > >
> > >I'm not convinced "unless" can be a purely
> truth conditional OR.
> > >I don't want to say that "I am mortal,
> unless you are mortal" is
> > >true, even though "I am mortal OR you are
> mortal" is.
> > >
> > >"Unless" would seem to require its
> complement to be either false
> > >or very unlikely/exceptional.
> >
> >
> > Why? Sure, you *can* use "unless" that way.
> But it's also quite
> > commonly used to mean "if not..."
> >
> > There'll be a game on Thursday, unless it
> rains. (not necessarily very
> > unlikely!)
>
> Re-read what he said again: Either false *OR*
> exceptional.

But then, it doesn't have to be false either.
But it is marked off in some way to prevent
conversion: "It rains Thursday unless there is a
game."

> This started because I insisted that "da'i"
> should be used for the
> second half of the clause, because it may or
> may not have happened
> or ever happen. PC argued, and xorxes got in
> to it with him.

We are agreed more or less that the "unless"
component needs marking off, but are of different
minds about how strong that mark need be. I
think we agree that full world- constructing
{da'i} is stronger than needed, xorxes wants it
stronger than I think is necessary. I would now
go with just the distinguishing mark of "but"
over "and," {ku'i} — expanding its meaning
somewhat, to be sure.


posts: 1912


> Jorge "Llambías" wrote:
> >"Unless" would seem to require its complement to be
> >either false or very unlikely/exceptional.
> >
> Why? Sure, you *can* use "unless" that way. But it's also quite
> commonly used to mean "if not..."

I agree "unless" is usually interchangeable with "if not".
But they both normally carry more baggage than plain logical OR.
Neither of them is usually interchangeable with plain "or".

> There'll be a game on Thursday, unless it rains. (not necessarily very
> unlikely!)

Default: There'll be a game on Thusday.
Exception: if it rains on Thusrday, there won't/may not be a game.

It doesn't mean the same as "it'll rain on Thursday, unless there
is a game", which it should if "unless" was just OR.

> Fill out form XJ912/3 unless you have already filed waiver 99234.
> (perfectly likely)
>
> other examples abound. I don't see extreme unlikeliness any more
> implied in "unless" than it is in "if".

Right, it desn't have to be extreme. It's more like an exception.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com




posts: 1912


pc:
> We are agreed more or less that the "unless"
> component needs marking off, but are of different
> minds about how strong that mark need be. I
> think we agree that full world- constructing
> {da'i} is stronger than needed, xorxes wants it
> stronger than I think is necessary. I would now
> go with just the distinguishing mark of "but"
> over "and," {ku'i} — expanding its meaning
> somewhat, to be sure.

I think that's a good idea. Let's see how it
would work:

mi'o klama ija ku'i carvi
We go, or, in contrast, it rains.
We go unless it rains.

This will also allow us to reverse the order:

ga ku'i carvi gi mi'o klama
Either, in contrast, it rains, or we go.
Unless it rains, we go.

This suggests that {ge ku'i ... gi ...} can also be used
as a general "even though":

ge ku'i carvi gi mi'o klama
Both, in contrast, it rains, and we go.
Even though it rains, we go.

(Of course we also have {seki'unai}, {semu'inai}, {seri'anai},
{seni'inai} for this.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com




posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 08:54:39AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> pc:
> > We are agreed more or less that the "unless" component needs
> > marking off, but are of different minds about how strong that
> > mark need be. I think we agree that full world- constructing
> > {da'i} is stronger than needed, xorxes wants it stronger than I
> > think is necessary. I would now go with just the distinguishing
> > mark of "but" over "and," {ku'i} — expanding its meaning
> > somewhat, to be sure.
>
> I think that's a good idea. Let's see how it would work:
>
> mi'o klama ija ku'i carvi
> We go, or, in contrast, it rains.
> We go unless it rains.
>
> This will also allow us to reverse the order:
>
> ga ku'i carvi gi mi'o klama
> Either, in contrast, it rains, or we go.
> Unless it rains, we go.

That all makes sense. You gonna change the page?

-Robin


posts: 1912


> > I think that's a good idea. Let's see how it would work:
> >
> > mi'o klama ija ku'i carvi
> > We go, or, in contrast, it rains.
> > We go unless it rains.
> >
> > This will also allow us to reverse the order:
> >
> > ga ku'i carvi gi mi'o klama
> > Either, in contrast, it rains, or we go.
> > Unless it rains, we go.
>
> That all makes sense. You gonna change the page?

I'd rather explore it a bit more first. I see that the section
on UIb (ki'u, ji'a, po'o) is still shepherdless, would you mind
if I take it?

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com




posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:43:16AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > I think that's a good idea. Let's see how it would work:
> > >
> > > mi'o klama ija ku'i carvi We go, or, in contrast, it rains.
> > > We go unless it rains.
> > >
> > > This will also allow us to reverse the order:
> > >
> > > ga ku'i carvi gi mi'o klama Either, in contrast, it rains,
> > > or we go. Unless it rains, we go.
> >
> > That all makes sense. You gonna change the page?
>
> I'd rather explore it a bit more first. I see that the section on
> UIb (ki'u, ji'a, po'o) is still shepherdless, would you mind if I
> take it?

I do not. As far as I'm concerned, everyone else has had *plenty*
of time to offer their services; take whatever you like.

-Robin


posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > We are agreed more or less that the "unless"
> > component needs marking off, but are of
> different
> > minds about how strong that mark need be. I
> > think we agree that full world- constructing
> > {da'i} is stronger than needed, xorxes wants
> it
> > stronger than I think is necessary. I would
> now
> > go with just the distinguishing mark of "but"
> > over "and," {ku'i} — expanding its meaning
> > somewhat, to be sure.
>
> I think that's a good idea. Let's see how it
> would work:
>
> mi'o klama ija ku'i carvi
> We go, or, in contrast, it rains.
> We go unless it rains.
>
> This will also allow us to reverse the order:
>
> ga ku'i carvi gi mi'o klama
> Either, in contrast, it rains, or we go.
> Unless it rains, we go.
>
> This suggests that {ge ku'i ... gi ...} can
> also be used
> as a general "even though":
>
> ge ku'i carvi gi mi'o klama
> Both, in contrast, it rains, and we go.
> Even though it rains, we go.
>
> (Of course we also have {seki'unai},
> {semu'inai}, {seri'anai},
> {seni'inai} for this.)
>
Hmmm! Nice!. I'm not sure I agree that they
amount to the same thing, but they are clearly
related (and that sentence seems to fit in pretty
well).

Playing with the origianl "but" {e ku'i}, I ran
across the following, which seems different and,
indeed, to actually involve subjunctives
(certainly in English) "He would have come, but
he was tired." This looks like "Had he not been
tired, he would have come" with the usual
implication (but it seems to be more in the
English original) that the protasis is false,
i.e., that he was tired. Question, does' {da'i}
always mean that the postulated state does not
hold? Surely not, since general laws are true
even when we are testing them (making the
condition true). So, {da'i} at most pragmatically
implicates contrary-to-factness and that
implication can be overridden somehow.