From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Nov 25 19:50:58 1994
Message-Id: <199411260050.AA18996@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Fri Nov 25 19:50:58 1994
From: Iain Alexander <ia@STRYX.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH:  existential quantification
Status: RO

  DATE     TIME           FROM                   SUBJECT             CODES
la .and. cusku di'e
> "Mi troci lo nu mi viska do" is, I think, equivalent to
> "Da poi nu mi viska do zohu mi troci da".
>      ^^^^^ [this is a guess - I don't know any other way to do it]
> I would translate this as "I managed to see you".
> The problem is how to get "I tried to see you", where the attempt
> is, or may be, unsuccessful, so that there is no event of me
> seeing you.
> I have been told, in the last few months, that "nu" doesn't entail
> its complement bridi is true, but I should have thought that the
> existentially quantifying preceding "lo" does require there to
> be an event.
> Have I gone wrong?
> What is the solution?

I pretty much agree with Jorge on this, but I'd like to repeat a
suggestion I've made in the past.  I like {za'i} in this situation.

        mi troci lo za'i mi viska do

This assumes that {za'i <broda>} (the state <broda>) is some
sort of abstraction from all the events {nu <broda>}.
I don't (yet:) have a good formal definition of this.
It appears to be the case that

        da xi ny. za'i broda
        exists x-n:  x-n is state <broda>

is equivalent to

        da xi ny. za'i da xi vei ny. su'i pa nu broda
        exists x-n:  x-n is state (exists x-(n+1): x-(n+1) is event <broda>)

but this recursive definition is not as enlightening as I
would like.  :-(  %~>

co'o mi'e .i,n.

--
Iain Alexander (ia@stryx.demon.co.uk)