From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Tue Nov 22 18:16:01 1994 Message-Id: <199411222315.AA24895@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Tue Nov 22 18:16:01 1994 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: existential quantification Status: RO 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 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. Use the opaque marker! {xe'e lo nu} or {lo'e nu} or more likely {xe'e le nu} or {le'e nu}. > 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. I think I agree. > Have I gone wrong? > What is the solution? Either be consistent and change our habits, or keep our habits and live with the inconsistency. > 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. Jorge