From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Thu Feb 23 03:16:53 1995
Message-Id: <199502230816.AA21557@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Thu Feb 23 03:16:53 1995
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Existence and occurrence of events (was: ago24 & replies)

And:

> > > > 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.
> > Why? What do you mean by {mi troci lo nu lo rokci cu muvdu}?
>
> I try to bring about an event of the rock moving. I try to get
> the rock to move.

Ok, I think I see it now.

If I had said {mi troci le nu le rokci cu muvdu}, then there would be no
problem. If the event I had in mind happened then I succeeded. If it
didn't, then I failed. There can be no confusion with other events
that I didn't have in mind.

On the other hand {mi troci lo nu le rokci cu muvdu} is analogous to
{mi djica lo plise}. I am only claiming that there is one event (at least)
among {ro lo nu le rokci cu muvdu} which I try, and if another one
of those events happens to happen, then I didn't necessarily succeed.

What I meant to say is that if {mi troci ko'a}, then {ko'a fasnu}
means I've succeeded, and {ko'a na fasnu} means I've failed.
In other words, if {le se troci be mi cu ca'a fasnu}, then I've succeeded.

So if _the_ event I tried for happens, I indeed succeeded.

Do we agree now?

Jorge