Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 22:22:30 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Existence and occurrence of events (was: ago24 & replies)
In-reply-to: (Your message of Wed,
 15 Feb 95 20:01:57 PST.) <Pine.SUN.3.91.950215195203.12249A-100000@crl9.crl.com>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HN4YUTEPHI0013UD@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2982
Lines: 62

pc:
> > That this has traditionally been the case is plain from established
> > usage. I, however, feel that it would be more consistent with the
> > rest of the language if lo nu actually happens in this universe, since
> > the default for all other predicates is that they hold in this universe.
> > If things are to remain as they are, {nu} must mean "is an event in
> > some universe", while every other broda must mean "is a broda in this
> > universe". Still, the only problem with this is the inconsistency.
> > If we want to talk of a real event I guess we can say "mi troci
> > lo dahinai nu mi klama", "I managed to go".
> > I suppose it will be preferred that the inconsistency remain, in
> > order not to invalidate current usage.
>        Well, managing to go is not exactly trying to get some event,
> however modified (what is dahinai?), it is succeeding in getting the
> going.
 
{Dahinai} is an UI for "in fact" - which I am taking to mean "exists
in this universe". (The use of "h" results from a long-past debate
about replacing the apostrophe by "h" - "let usage decide" was the
unsurprising upshot, & usage has clearly decided against. I'm now
thinking of omitting the "h" altogether, except where it disambiguates,
but have delayed doing so due to a reluctance to undertake explaining
the confusions such a step might sow.)
 
If I try to go, and succeed in going, then I manage to go. If I manage
to go, then I must have tried to go.
 
> "Succeeding" implies (Good Gricean sense) the trying, but trying
> for an event however real it may turn out to be does not imply the
> succeeding (indeed, mentioning trying usually suggests -- not so
> Griceanly -- the failing).
 
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.
 
>        And _nu_broda_ doesn't mean "is an event in some universe", since
> it is perfectly possible to _nu_ an impossible event and have it apply
> correctly -- to another impossible event, of course.
 
For all events, there is (he says omnisciently) a universe in which
the event is possible.
 
> The predicate form
> is veridical, since it is not true of anything that is not an event, but
> things can be events without occurring -- indeed, most event are, since
> most don't happen (Thank God!).  And an event is an event because of its
> structure or whatever, not because of where or whether it occurs.
 
I accept that things can be events without occurring in this world, but
not without occurring in some world. To go back to my "describe a book"
example, this is ambiguous as to whether or not there exists in this
world a book such that I described it. I.e. whether the book is real
or imaginary.
 
If existence in space/time is not a necessary condition of existence,
I cannot conceive of what other sorts of existence there might be.
 
---
And