From a.rosta@pmail.net Sat Jan 29 11:03:44 2000 X-Digest-Num: 348 Message-ID: <44114.348.1873.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 19:03:44 -0000 From: "And Rosta" Subject: RE: Re: Subjunctives > From: "Jorge Llambias" > > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and > >everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification. As > >Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w, > >then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world > >in > >which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in > >this world. On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a > >million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a > >muillion -- and says that there are some. Clearly the latter is much > >closer > >to what is wanted, though even it may not be quite right (Lojban has the > >means to do this, but does not use it for this purpose). > > And it is interesting that this solution: "in every possible > world in which I have a million, w, I am rich in w" does not > use the logical IF, and is remarkably similar to the {va'o} > solution: > > va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu > Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich. > In every world where I have a mill., I am rich. First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence is basically saying that you are rich and you have a million, where the having a million is the conditions in which you are rich. Second, if you do have the {da'i}, you still can't get the "every world" versus "some world" distinction, which was the point I intended in my original contribution to this thread. --And.