Message-Id: <199502140659.AA13868@nfs2.digex.net> From: ucleaar Date: Tue Feb 14 01:59:06 1995 Subject: Re: ago24 & replies X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 14 01:59:06 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Goran: > > How do we verify the bridi {da nu broda}? Is it sufficient to examine > > the totality of time and see if lo nu broda ever occurred? Is occurring > > a necessary condition of nu-hood? (That is, is it the case that > > for all events there is some time such that the event occurs at that > > time?) If it is, then I don't think we can have irrealis events. > > If it is not, then we can have irrealis events, but claims about > > nu broda are truth-conditionally vacuous. > I don't think so. I conclude that {lonu broda} *should* express realis, > but {lenu broda} can be irrealis. I agree. {lo nu} means an event that actually happens. {le nu} can mean anything, being nonveridical. Ideally we'll find a way to do +veridical irrealis. I've just posted a suggestion for using {dahi}. > Actually, {lonu broda} could describe irrealis if we > listened to a suggestion (I forgot who made it), which agrees with > worldview of some American Indians very much: irrealis is also a fact. The problem with this is that it makes everything true. "I have 3 heads" is not true of this world, but is true in some imaginary world. So {lonu broda} should be able to describe irrealis only if we have clear ways of whether we're talking about this world or an imaginary one. --- And