32_Chapter_32_Conditions_and_Consequences_Edition_2.7

The foundational conditional structure is:

ili [condition] · sori [consequence]

Meaning:

If the condition is fulfilled, then the consequence follows within the stated rule, plan, or inference.

Example schema:

ili P · sori Q

If P, then Q.

This construction does not, by itself, establish:

that P is true;

that P is likely;

that Q will certainly occur;

that P physically caused Q;

that anyone intends Q;

that anyone consented to Q;

or that Q is ethically justified.

It expresses only the stated branch relation.

32.2 The Conditional Frame

The ordinary conditional frame may contain five parts:

Condition — Consequence — Alternative — Unknown Response — Stop Boundary

Canonical structure:

ili P · sori Q · runi R · ænareya S · tam T

Where:

P is the condition;

Q is the primary consequence or action;

R is the alternative if the condition is false;

S is the response when the condition cannot yet be evaluated;

T is the boundary requiring immediate cessation.

Not every conditional sentence requires every part.

The simplest form remains:

ili P · sori Q

A fuller operational structure is:

ili P · sori Q · neli P sori R

If P, then Q. Unless P, then R.

The experimental fallback particle runi may shorten the second branch:

ili P · sori Q · runi R

If P, then Q; otherwise, R.

Because runi refers to the failure of a previously established branch rather than directly negating one proposition, it is not identical to neli.

32.3 Stable Conditional Particles ili — if ili introduces a condition.

ili P · sori Q If P, then Q.

Without an additional modal or truth marker, the condition remains open.

The speaker does not claim that P is true, false, expected, or unlikely.

sori — then, therefore, consequence sori introduces the consequence, result, or decision branch.

It may express:

a logical consequence;

a procedural response;

an anticipated result;

a required action;

or the next branch in a plan.

The nature of the consequence must be established by the surrounding grammar.

sori alone does not mean physical causation.

neli — unless neli introduces the branch that applies when a condition is not fulfilled.

neli P · sori Q Unless P, Q.

This is logically close to:

ili ne P · sori Q

If not P, then Q.

However, the forms differ in emphasis.

ili ne P directly evaluates the negated condition.

neli P presents P as an exception capable of preventing the main branch.

kare ili — only if kare ili marks a necessary condition.

Q kare ili P Q only if P.

This means P is required for Q.

It does not mean P is enough to produce Q.

Example:

vel A kare ili P

A is permitted only if P.

P may be necessary while other requirements remain active.

veli ili — even if

The analytical construction veli ili means:

although the condition may be fulfilled; even if.

veli ili P · sori Q Even if P, Q remains the consequence.

This construction establishes that P does not cancel Q within the stated scope.

It must not be confused with:

vel — permission;

veli — although;

ili — if.

The difference between vel and veli must remain audible and visible.

runi — otherwise runi is introduced in this chapter as an Experimental branch particle.

It means:

otherwise; if none of the preceding applicable conditions are fulfilled.

Example:

ili P · sori Q · runi R

If P, then Q; otherwise, R.

Unlike neli, runi may refer to an entire preceding branch set.

Example:

ili P · sori A · ili Q · sori B · runi C

If P, do A. If Q, do B. Otherwise, do C.

Until spoken and machine-readable testing is complete, formal safety instructions should prefer explicit negated branches rather than relying solely on runi.

32.4 Open and Real Conditions An open condition concerns something that remains genuinely possible and unresolved.

Its ordinary form is:

ili P · sori Q

Examples in English structure:

If the water-monitoring system stops, pause the water process.

If the listener accepts the invitation, begin the conversation.

If the shelter requires repair, repair the shelter.

The condition remains open because the speaker has not marked P as:

already confirmed;

expected;

unlikely;

impossible;

or contrary to known reality.

An already confirmed fact is no longer merely an open condition.

Compare:

ili P · sori Q

If P, then Q.

kare P · sori Q P is confirmed; therefore Q.

The second construction enters the branch. It does not merely describe it.

A rule may have been conditional when designed and factual when executed.

32.5 Expected Conditions An expected condition uses varel, the established marker of expectation or prediction.

Canonical form:

ili varel P · sori Q

If P occurs as expected, then Q.

This does not claim certainty.

It indicates that the planning structure presently treats P as the expected branch.

Example:

ili varel paya li P · sori Q

If P occurs later as expected, then Q.

Expected conditions are useful in:

schedules;

resource planning;

maintenance;

travel;

agreements;

preparation;

and automated systems.

An expectation must not be disguised as a fact.

varel P is not kare P.

Prediction is not confirmation.

32.6 Unlikely Conditions An unlikely condition is expressed analytically: ili ne varel P · sori Q If P occurs, though it is not expected, then Q.

This says P remains possible but is not presently predicted.

It must not be translated as impossible.

ne varel means:

not expected.

ne hei means:

not possible.

These forms must remain distinct.

Example:

ili ne varel tareþ-ar koren · sori hem telem

If the system is interrupted, though interruption is not expected, pause the tool.

The branch exists because low likelihood does not justify ignoring meaningful risk.

32.7 Impossible Conditions An impossible condition uses ne hei.

ili ne hei P · sori Q If the impossible condition P were treated as occurring, then Q.

Such constructions should be used carefully.

A speaker must not declare something impossible merely because it is:

unknown;

inconvenient;

unlikely;

unprecedented;

unwanted;

difficult to imagine;

or absent from the current record.

In technical speech, ne hei should be reserved for:

1. logical impossibility;

1. contradiction under identical scope;

1. physically impossible conditions established by the relevant technical model;

1. or impossibility created by a closed deadline or exhausted opportunity.

Example:

If completion before the expired deadline is impossible, choose a new deadline rather than pretending the earlier one remains active.

The language protects the distinction:

ænareya — uncertain;

ne varel — not expected;

ne hei — impossible.

Unknown is not impossible.

Unlikely is not impossible.

32.8 Present Counterfactuals A present counterfactual imagines a state that contradicts the currently established state.

The analytical construction is:

ili čarel nu li P · sori Q

Literally:

If P, contrary to the present established state, then Q.

This construction uses the existing root čarel, contradiction under identical scope.

It does not create a new meaning for čarel. It applies contradiction to the temporal scope nu.

Example:

If I were presently within the shelter, contrary to the established fact that I am not, I would repair the tool.

A present counterfactual must identify the relevant scope.

The statement:

If I were ready—

is incomplete when “ready” could refer to several different tasks, times, or standards.

Counterfactuality requires a known contrast, not merely uncertainty.

32.9 Past Counterfactuals A past counterfactual imagines a branch that was not entered.

The analytical construction is:

ili čarel eren li P · sori Q

If P had occurred, contrary to the established past, then Q.

Example:

If the warning had been received before the interruption, the tool would have been stopped.

Past counterfactuals must not be used to manufacture certainty about what would have followed.

The unentered consequence remains hypothetical.

Therefore:

If P had occurred, Q certainly would have occurred

requires more support than:

If P had occurred, Q may have occurred.

The language should preserve that difference through the modal attached to Q.

Possible consequence: hei Q Expected consequence: varel Q Required consequence under a rule: tor Q A past counterfactual does not rewrite the past.

It describes an unentered branch of becoming.

32.10 Future Counterfactuals The future is ordinarily not counterfactual because its facts have not yet been established.

Future branches should normally be marked as:

open;

expected;

unlikely;

or impossible.

Open future: ili paya li P · sori Q Expected future: ili varel paya li P · sori Q Unlikely future: ili ne varel paya li P · sori Q Impossible future: ili ne hei paya li P · sori Q A future event may be called contrary to fact only when the relevant possibility has already closed.

For example:

a deadline has passed;

the required resource no longer exists;

an incompatible decision has already been finalized;

or the event contains a logical contradiction.

The language must not treat a feared future as though it has already become factual.

32.11 Sufficient Conditions A sufficient condition is expressed by ordinary implication: ili P · sori Q If P, then Q.

Within the stated rule, P is sufficient for Q.

This does not establish that P is necessary.

There may be other paths to Q.

Example:

If the emergency stop is activated, the machine stops.

The statement does not establish that activating the emergency stop is the only way the machine can stop.

32.12 Necessary Conditions A necessary condition uses kare ili.

Q kare ili P Q only if P.

P is necessary for Q.

This does not establish that P is sufficient.

Example:

Entry is permitted only if present permission exists.

Permission may remain inactive even when other conditions are fulfilled.

Necessary-condition structure:

Q kare ili P

Equivalent logical direction:

ili Q · sori P

If Q is present, P must also be present.

32.13 Necessary and Sufficient Conditions A condition is both necessary and sufficient only when implication has been established in both directions.

ili P · sori Q ili Q · sori P This may be written as two linked implications.

The language must not compress this into a claim of sameness unless P and Q are genuinely identical in the relevant scope.

Logical equivalence is not always identity.

Two conditions may always occur together under one rule while remaining different concepts.

Example:

The indicator is active exactly when the monitored state is active.

The indicator and the monitored state are not the same thing, even when their truth conditions correspond.

32.14 Multiple Dependencies A consequence may depend on more than one condition.

All conditions required ili P ai Q · sori R If P and Q, then R.

Both P and Q must be fulfilled.

At least one condition required ili P oya Q · sori R If P or Q, then R.

Because oya is inclusive, R follows when:

P alone is fulfilled;

Q alone is fulfilled;

or both are fulfilled.

Exactly one condition required ili kare an oya P, Q · sori R If exactly one of P or Q is fulfilled, then R.

Nested dependency ili P · sori ili Q · sori R If P, then if Q, then R.

Nested conditions should be used sparingly in ordinary speech.

When a sentence contains more than two dependency levels, separate clauses or a visible decision structure are preferred.

Dependent permission vel A kare ili P ai Q A is permitted only if both P and Q are fulfilled.

This does not eliminate the possibility of additional unstated legal or ethical requirements. Consequential instructions should state all known controlling requirements.

32.15 Independent and Ordered Conditions Multiple conditions may be independent or ordered.

Independent branches: ili P · sori A ili Q · sori B Both actions may occur if both conditions are fulfilled.

Ordered branches require explicit order.

Example structure:

1. evaluate P;

1. if P is false, evaluate Q;

1. if Q is false, enter the fallback branch.

Experimental compressed form:

ili P · sori A · ili Q · sori B · runi C

In technical use, branch order must be documented.

Without an order marker or operational convention, two conditions are not automatically exclusive.

If P and Q can both be true, A and B may both become active.

To require exactly one branch, use:

kare an oya

or provide explicit priority rules.

32.16 Failure Branches A failure branch describes what happens when the intended condition, action, or result is not fulfilled.

Several established forms remain distinct:

tam — stopped immediately or stopped without fulfillment;

hem — paused but still open;

tareþ — interrupted;

ralom — deliberately abandoned;

nakor — failed to produce the defined result;

ne-om — not completed;

neli — unless;

runi — otherwise.

Example:

ili nakor P · sori hem Q

If P fails to produce the defined result, pause Q.

Example:

ili tareþ P · sori dorel-ar me P

If P is interrupted, I repair P.

Example:

ili ne-om P tala T · sori taren

If P is not completed by deadline T, issue a warning.

Failure must be defined by a result, boundary, or requirement.

Mere dissatisfaction is not automatically failure.

A process may be:

incomplete;

paused;

abandoned;

interrupted;

unsuccessful;

or still unfolding.

These are not interchangeable.

32.17 Fallback Actions A fallback is an alternative action taken when the preferred branch cannot be entered.

Stable explicit form:

ili P · sori A · neli P sori B

Experimental compressed form:

ili P · sori A · runi B

A fallback should identify:

what condition failed;

whether the failure is confirmed or unknown;

whether the fallback is temporary or final;

and whether the original branch remains open.

Temporary fallback:

neli P · sori hem A ai B

Unless P, pause A and use B.

Abandoned primary branch:

neli P · sori ralom A ai B

Unless P, deliberately abandon A and use B.

A fallback must not silently become the new permanent rule.

Completion of B does not imply that A has become impossible or undesirable.

32.18 Unless neli means that the main rule holds except when the named condition is fulfilled.

Q neli P Q, unless P.

Or in expanded form:

neli P · sori Q

Unless P, Q.

A condition introduced by neli blocks or redirects the ordinary branch.

It does not necessarily reverse every consequence.

Example:

Continue the process unless the stop condition becomes active.

This does not mean:

Ignore warnings until the stop condition becomes active.

Warnings and stop conditions remain separate.

32.19 Except No new standalone word for “except” is stabilized in this chapter.

The concept is expressed through scoped neli constructions.

Set exception:

alema X · Q · neli Y

All X follow Q, except Y.

Rule exception:

Q neli P

Q applies except when P.

The exception must be identifiable.

“Everyone except some people” is not operationally clear.

An exception does not automatically create:

permission;

immunity;

ownership;

consent;

superiority;

or release from responsibility.

It removes or redirects only the rule explicitly placed within its scope.

32.20 Even If veli ili P · sori Q Even if P, Q.

This structure is used when P would ordinarily be expected to prevent, weaken, or alter Q, but does not do so within the stated scope.

Example:

Even if the invitation is declined, goodwill remains.

The condition does not erase the relational posture.

Example:

Even if the system restarts, inspection remains required.

The restart does not cancel the inspection requirement.

“Even if” must not be used to override consent.

The statement:

Even if you refuse, I will continue

is a declaration of intended violation when the action requires the other person’s consent.

Grammar may describe coercion, but it must not disguise coercion as devotion, persistence, or care.

32.21 Only If kare ili expresses necessity.

Q kare ili P Q only if P.

Examples:

The tool may operate only if the guard is active.

Access is permitted only if present authorization exists.

The action may continue only if consent remains active.

Only-if statements must not be reversed without justification.

From:

Q only if P

one may infer:

If Q, then P.

One may not automatically infer:

If P, then Q.

The condition may be necessary without being sufficient.

32.22 Conditional Cause, Prediction, Intention, Requirement, Permission, and Consequence The language must keep several relationships distinct.

ili P if P.

Opens a branch.

sori Q then Q.

Names the result or response associated with the branch.

Prediction varel Q ili P Q is expected if P.

Claims expectation, not certainty.

Possibility hei Q ili P Q may occur if P.

Claims possibility.

Intention ya Q ili P there is an intention to do Q if P.

Intention is not obligation, promise, permission, consent, or completion.

Requirement tor Q ili P Q is required if P.

A requirement should identify its authority or source when consequential.

Permission vel Q ili P Q is permitted if P.

Permission does not require Q.

Prohibition ke Q ili P Q is prohibited if P.

Immediate stop tam Q ili P stop Q immediately if P.

Physical or explanatory cause A conditional relation alone does not establish cause.

ili P · sori Q

does not necessarily mean:

P physically caused Q.

It may instead mean:

Q is the planned response to P;

Q is inferred from P;

Q is required under P;

Q is predicted under P;

or Q is permitted under P.

Claims of cause require separate evidence and will be developed further in Chapter 33.

32.23 Conditional Permission Conditional permission takes the form: vel A ili P A is permitted if P.

Necessary condition:

vel A kare ili P

A is permitted only if P.

Permission must identify its scope.

A person may have permission:

for one action;

with one tool;

at one time;

in one place;

or under one agreement.

Permission for A does not imply permission for B.

Permission yesterday does not prove permission now.

Permission granted by one person does not automatically bind another person.

Possession, title, custody, stewardship, ability, and proximity do not create permission.

32.24 Conditional Consent Consent is not a mechanical consequence produced by satisfying external conditions.

A condition may limit consent, but it cannot replace the present act of consenting.

Necessary-condition structure:

velor-ar me ren A kare ili P

My present consent to A exists only if P.

This means P is necessary.

It does not mean P automatically creates consent.

Current consent must still be active.

A complete consent-sensitive branch requires both:

kare P ai velor-ar [participant] ren A

P is confirmed, and the participant presently consents to A.

Consent becomes inactive when:

it is withdrawn with nava;

the stated condition ceases;

the scope changes;

the action changes;

the participant loses the ability to evaluate the situation;

or the relevant time expires.

Immediate stop remains:

tam

Silence is not a fulfilled consent condition.

Past consent is not present consent.

Conditional consent must never be treated as ownership of future access.

32.25 Conditional Commitments and Promises A dedicated promise lexeme is intentionally deferred to Chapter 48, where promises, agreements, rights, and law will be treated together.

Until then, a promise-grade conditional commitment is expressed as a first-person self-assumed obligation:

tor-ar me A ili P

I am obligated to do A if P.

This is stronger than:

ya me A ili P

I intend to do A if P.

A serious conditional commitment should include:

the triggering condition;

the action;

the scope;

the deadline or duration;

the responsible participant;

and any recognized release condition.

Example structure:

tor-ar me A ili P · tala T

I bind myself to do A if P, by deadline T.

A speaker must not use ya, intention, when another person reasonably understands a promise to have been made.

Likewise, an external obligation must not be disguised as a voluntary promise.

32.26 Conditional Obligations Conditional obligation uses tor.

tor A ili P A is required if P.

An obligation may arise from:

an agreement;

a role;

a safety procedure;

a legal rule;

an accepted responsibility;

or a self-assumed commitment.

The source should be named when relevant.

A requirement without identifiable authority may be challenged through clarification.

ireya: jor tor?

Clarification: by whose agency or authority is this required?

Urgency does not manufacture authority.

A person stating tor bears responsibility for accurately representing the requirement.

32.27 Adaptive Plans An adaptive plan changes in response to conditions without abandoning its purpose.

Basic structure:

ili P · sori A

neli P · sori B

ili Q · sori C

The plan may include:

a preferred branch;

a reduced branch;

a pause;

a repair process;

a fallback;

a stop condition;

and a return condition.

Example conceptual structure:

If the primary water source is available, use it.

Unless the primary source is available, use the stored reserve.

If the reserve falls below the safety threshold, stop nonessential use.

If the measurement is unknown, pause expansion and inspect the system.

An adaptive plan is not inconsistent merely because it contains different actions under different conditions.

Consistency requires that the same scope and condition receive compatible treatment.

Adaptation changes action because the relevant state has changed.

32.28 Decision Trees A decision tree is a visible arrangement of conditional branches.

Each branch should identify:

1. the condition being evaluated;

1. its truth status;

1. the action associated with fulfillment;

1. the action associated with nonfulfillment;

1. the response to uncertainty;

1. and any stop boundary.

Canonical conceptual form: ili P sori A neli P ili Q sori B neli Q sori C ænareya P oya Q sori hem ai ireya Meaning: If P, do A.

If not P, evaluate Q.

If Q, do B.

If neither P nor Q, do C.

If P or Q cannot be evaluated, pause and clarify.

In ordinary speech, no more than three visible branch levels are recommended.

More complex systems should use written diagrams, tables, or machine-readable structures.

Beauty serves clarity.

Sacred or poetic arrangement must not make an emergency branch harder to understand.

32.29 Exclusive and Nonexclusive Branches Branches are nonexclusive unless exclusivity is stated or logically established.

If P and Q can both be true, then: ili P sori A ili Q sori B may activate both A and B.

To require one branch only:

kare an oya P, Q

exactly one of P or Q.

To create a priority sequence, the order must be explicit.

Example:

First evaluate P. If P is false, evaluate Q.

The experimental particle runi assumes an ordered branch set. Therefore, technical documents must define whether:

the first matching branch is selected;

every matching branch is executed;

or a named priority determines selection.

Unstated priority is a design defect.

32.30 Risk Thresholds A risk threshold is a measurable or observable boundary that changes the required response.

Canonical structure:

ili [measured state] [COMPARATOR] [threshold] · sori [response]

The exact comparison vocabulary established in Chapter 28 must be preserved.

The continuation packet retains the comparison inventory but not every individual gloss. Therefore, this chapter does not silently reassign any comparison particle.

Until the full Chapter 28 registry is reconciled, technical examples should use:

the established native comparison form from the complete codex;

or an unambiguous technical symbol such as < , ≤ , > , or ≥ .

Threshold levels may correspond to:

notice;

caution;

warning;

required intervention;

prohibition;

or immediate stop.

Example conceptual ladder: value < caution threshold ordinary operation value ≥ caution threshold taren — warning value ≥ intervention threshold tor — intervention required value ≥ stop threshold tam — stop immediately A warning threshold is not the same as a stop threshold.

Risk must not be exaggerated merely to gain obedience.

Nor should uncertainty be minimized to preserve convenience.

32.31 Unknown Conditions

A condition may be:

confirmed;

false;

or unknown.

Canonical truth states:

kare — confirmed;

ne — false;

ænareya — uncertain or not presently known.

Unknown must not default to false.

Unknown must not default to true.

Unknown must not be entered as zero.

Missing data is not zero.

Canonical unknown-response form:

ili ænareya P · sori hem A ai ireya P

If P is unknown, pause A and clarify P.

Personal knowledge statement:

ne nareþ me P

I do not know P.

Safety-critical unknown:

ili ænareya P · sori tam A

If P cannot be determined, stop A.

This form should be used only when uncertainty itself creates unacceptable risk.

In lower-risk situations, hem, pause while remaining open, is generally preferable.

32.32 Unknown Is a Third Branch Binary systems commonly force every condition into true or false.

not yet known.

The three-state condition model is:

State Form Meaning

Confirmed kare The condition is presently supported as true.

False ne The condition is presently supported as false.

Unknown ænareya The condition cannot presently be resolved.

This does not mean truth itself has three forms.

It means the speaker’s evaluated status may be:

confirmed true;

confirmed false;

or unresolved.