Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rA7cF-00007CC; Wed, 23 Nov 94 04:39 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5969; Wed, 23 Nov 94 04:39:39 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5967; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 04:39:35 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9964; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 03:36:07 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 16:19:47 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: existential quantification X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1888 Lines: 56 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