Message-Id: <199411232114.AA06714@nfs2.digex.net>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed Nov 23 16:14:35 1994
Subject:      Re: existential quantification
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Tue, 22 Nov 94 16:19:47 EST.)
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 23 16:14:35 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

jorge:
> 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]
>
> That's the right way. (Sometimes Lojban does work as one would expect.)
>
> > I would translate this as "I managed to see you".
>
> I have to agree with you, but this is not how things have been thought
> up to now. I'm not sure what side to take, consistency or tradition.

The spirit of the Lojbo ideal would argue for consistency. The desire
to get the language sorted out without further delay would argue
for tradition.

I think this counts as a case where something is broken, so the
"if it's not broken, don;t fix it" rule won't apply.

> > If this sort of non-factual sumti is found only with "intentional"
> > brivla
>
> I think that is the case. At least I can't think of any
> counterexamples.
>
> > then a solution might be to render "try" by:
> >   "Mi troci lo siho mi viska do"
> > (where "siho" is what I think is the idea abstraction cmavo from NU).
>
> That's what si'o is, but I'm not really sure what it means. I always
> thought it was a du'u-type thing, rather than a nu-type, so I wouldn't
> use it for this.
>
> > - With "troci" suitably defined so that it can accommodate such
> > an x2 sumti. The meaning would be: x1 endeavours to realize the
> > idea x2.
>
> I don't like it, because it's the same type of thing that was done
> with sisku: instead of trying to find the right sumti to use, we
> changed the meaning of the selbri to something more complicated.

"want" means "the existence of situation x2 pleases x1 and the nonexistence
of situation x2 displeases x1". All I'm suggesting is altering this
to: "the realization of x1's idea x2 pleases x1 and the nonrealization
of x2 displeases x1". It's a very slight change, and probably an
improvement, since the intentionality is reflected by the explicit
use of "siho".

The comparison with "sisku" I take as a gross slight. As presently
defined it makes no sense to me, and I think it is a candidate
for euthanasia. It won't get abolished, but I commend total
desuetude as a fitting fate for it.

I wonder whether the meanings of "want" and "seek" are in fact
more complex than you believe them to be.

---
And