Message-Id: <199502220057.AA06291@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 1995 21:32:21 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: Existence and occurrence of events (was: ago24 & replies)
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 21 19:59:32 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU

Jorge:
> And & pc:
> > > > The only way in which "try" implies "fail" is 'Gricean'.
> > > > I may be missing something, but to me it seems obvious that if
> > > > I try for an event and it turns out to be real then I have
> > > > succeeded. I cannot see how it could be otherwise.
> > >       Well, it might just come to pass without my effort being at all
> > > relevant to its coming to pass.  If an earthquake moves a stone from my
> > > path after my best efforts have failed, I cannot claim to have either
> > > managed or succeeded in moving the stone, even though I tried to and the
> > > stone is indeed moved.
> > I take your point.
> But what is the event here? Is the event I tried for that "the earthquake
> move the stone", or that "I move the stone"?
> In Lojban "I try to move the stone" is {mi troci le nu mi muvgau le rokci}.
> If the event I try for occurs, then I've succeeded. If some other related
> event occurs, but not the one I've tried for, then I've failed.

You're right if you translate it as {mi troci lo nu mi muvgau lo rokci}.
If you translate it as {mi troci lo nu lo rokci cu muvdu} then you're
wrong.

---
And