seri'abo: The door is not only
logically preventing you from going inside; it is physically preventing you.
seni'ibo: It logically follows from
the definition of 'lock' that, if you lock a door, the door is then closed.
babo: there is no real causal connection between
closing a door and leaving. You may be closing the door because you've finished your business there; but who's
to say why you closed it, after all...
Either je; babo,
or babo; babo. The actions don't follow from each other logically or physically. (If they
follow at all, they follow by social convention; so you might have used seki'ubo.) With the first pair, you're at least allowing that you saw me at the same
time I saw you. With the second pair, you definitely saw me only after I saw you.
je; nothing. This is a syllogism like the Fluffy
syllogism above; it follows from the two facts — you greeting me and you being in front
of me — that you have seen me. (Well, it doesn't really follow, but this is a lesson
on Lojban, not logic.) So you need to join the two facts together with AND.
On the other hand, the
'therefore' is already there, as the 'adverbial'
seni'i; so you don't need to insert it again for the third sentence. In
fact, as we discussed later on, it would join the wrong sentences together anyway...
seri'abo; seni'ibo. People fall as a physical result of
being pushed. The definition of 'fall' logically requires that someone who has fallen is
lower down than someone who hasn't fallen. (You don't fall upwards. Zero-gravity counterexamples — and you'll
make a good Lojbanist if you came up with one — are
already anticipated in the x4 place of