Message-Id: <m0rgkDV-00001pC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 1995 02:19:11 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: events - repsonse to And
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Mon, 20 Feb 95 07:29:04 EST.)
Content-Length: 3954
Lines: 81

Lojbab:
> >"lo unicorn" entails "Ex unicorn(x)". It asserts the existence of a
> >unicorn.
> That was a conclusion of your discussion late last year; I did not
> agree, but stopped arguing because someone (Cowan I think) pulled a
> semantics trick that rendered the argument moot for me.
> Bottom line:  The use of "lo [unicorn]" has never claimed that a unicorn
> exists in the 'real world'.  I believe Cowan's argument was that by the
> very fact of talking about a unicorn, you are incorporating into the
> universe of discourse some (shared) world of the mind where such a
> referent exists.  I take this as meaning that invoking "lo [unicorn]"
> alters the universe of discourse - not that it makes statements about
> "reality" (whatever that is).

I'm not happy with this, though I recall when I originally read John's
message last year I agreed with it.

The source of my unhappiness is that it is not true that the very fact
of talking about a unicorn shifts us into a universe of discourse where
unicorns exist. "I drew a picture of a unicorn" doesn't. That can be
true in the 100% real kickable world in which no unicorn exists.

That said, John's point is usually valid, in the sense that for
"A unicorn approached me" to be potentially true, we have to
shift to a universe where unicorns exist.

> >> Why should lo nu [unicorn] be any different?
> >I don't think it should be any different.  But in actual usage it is, so
> >I said the easiest thing is to let nu be exceptional.
> By the same reasoning "lo nu [unicorn]" invokes into the universe of
> discourse such an event.  Again, nothing to do with 'reality'.

I maintain that if we want to make statements that aren't vacuously
true then they must be made in the context of some specific universe.
If "several unicorns exist" automatically shifts us into a world where
unicorns exist, that statement must be true. But if instead that
statement means "in a specific universe, several unicorns exist", you
can test the claim by examining that universe.

> >And a consensus emerged last year that {da poi nu broda zohu brode} is
> >synonymous with {brode fa lo nu broda} (though (for reasons not clear to
> >me) you & pc wish this were not the case).
> That transformation appears to be a simple manipulation assuming "lo" =
> "dapoi".  But it is not clear to me that the transform is invariant
> under full quantification.  If pc objects, i suspect that it is not.
> Remember that the predicate inside a "nu" and the one inside a "poi"
> both have their own independent prenexes.  Those prenexes may not
> inherently be exportable out to the main level as part of simple
> manipulation.

Has anyone ever come up with an example where {lo} & {da poi} would
give different results?

> I personally would like to be able to assume that someone using "da" (at
> least unmarked by a discursive) IS making a claim of real existance.
> But I do NOT want to assume that a "lo" description is implying the real
> existance of the thing described.

I think this is coherent.

****   lo broda = lo dahi broda = da poi dahi broda            ****
****   da poi broda = da poi dahinai broda = lo dahinai broda  ****

Since you wrote this and before I received it, I posted a summary of
options on {lo}. This was number [3], & I feel it best represents
current usage. I hope (vainly, I expect) that the upshot of my
summary will be that the issue is settled (in the sense that everyone
agrees - maybe on the above equation).

> The import of "da'i" has never been firmly adjudicated.  Colin Fine
> introduced its use for irrealis, and no one has objected to this
> interpretation.  But all discursives are in effect invoking a 2nd,
> metalinguistic, predication.  So I read your Lojban as "I try for an
> event of my going, which event does in fact exist."  One can deduce that
> the 'trying' resulted in the 'going', but I would not contend that this
> is a logical necessity.

You're right.

----
And