Message-Id: <199502121413.AA19101@nfs2.digex.net>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Sun Feb 12 09:13:03 1995
Subject:      Re: ago24 & replies
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Feb 12 09:13:03 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

Jorge:
>        da kakne le nu tcidu xo'u ro selcku
>        For every book, there is someone that can read it. (head)
>        There is someone that for every book they can read it. (tail)
> To get "Someone can read any book", we need the tail convention.

"Someone can read any book" is actually ambiguous between the two
readings. I take your point of course, that the "head convention"
is not the only one that is useful. I suppose that one way to go
is to have two {xohu}s. There wd of course remain plenty of scopings
that cd only be got by using an overt prenex.

With respect to Q-scope you & I reverse our normal positions: you
favour simple grammar, making scope contingent on only word order
and prenex, whereas I favour add-on devices to add flexibility
(generally to allow for afterthought).

> > Incidentally, tho MacC may not have made the point, it must be
> > wide-scope over some *irrealis* element, so "Someone *can* marry
> > anyone" (Ex, Ay, possible: x marry y - contrast with "someone
> > can marry everyone" - Ex, possible: Ay x marry y) is fine, while
> > "Someone married anyone" is NOT okay, because there is no *irrealis*
> > element for "any" to have scope over. If "any" were nothing but
> > wide-scope universal, then "someone married anyone" shd be fine,
> > & mean Ay Ex: x married y - i.e. "Everyone was married by someone".
> > It's important to bear this point about irrealis in mind, because
> > it means that if {xohu} means "widest scope" then when there is no
> > irrealis element {xohu ro} will not translate as "any". Just in
> > case it's not obvious, I shd add that our oft-used-in-examples
> > {nitcu} is irrealis.]
> I think I agree, but the point about "irrealis elements" should be
> clarified. {nitcu} is not irrealis per se. In {ko'a nitcu ko'e} there
> need not be any irrealis element, it's just a claim that a relationship
> between ko'a and ko'e exists, just like any other {ko'a broda ko'e}.
> What can be irrealis is the event that can fill a tersumti. The x2 of
> nitcu can be an irrealis event, but I suppose it can be a realis event
> as well.

We argued about {nitcu} last year, and you eventually came up with a
definition of it (which I forget) such that the x2 can coherently be
an object. We can't sensibly discuss {nitcu} unless there is agreement
on what it means, but in order to reply to you I'll set that problem
aside. I held that by a certain definition of nitcu there is always
an implied subordinate bridi - some needed circumstance. This is
irrealis in that it may or may not be true, and its truth-status
doesn't affect its being needed. So "I need to have this book"
doesn't entail that I do have this book or that I don't.
This is what I mean by "irrealis" - "may or may not be the case";
I don;t mean "counterfactual" - "is not the case".

> A separate issue is whether {nu broda} can be an irrealis event, but I
> suppose it has to, otherwise it will be very hard to deal with these
> things.

I find myself getting more and more confused as I try to reply to this.
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.

Supposing we therefore said all events are realis. We could get at
the meaning approximating to an irrealis event by using {duhu da nu broda}.
Cumbersome as that may seem, it seems the most logical position to take.
This would mean that all irrealis sumti, e.g. x1 of cumki, should in
fact be duhu. ({lo nu broda kei cumki} would be true iff lo nu broda
ever occurs.}

So, going back to your point, {nu broda} in general is always realis.
If you meant {nu broda} as a needee, then by my def. of nitcu, yes
it must be irrealis: I suppose we shd have to say {nitcu} means
"it is necessary for x1 (i.e. it is to x1's advantage) that x2 be
the case", and thus say {nitcu lo duhu broda}, {nitcu lo duhu da nu
broda}.

---
And