Message-Id: <199502170339.AA11434@nfs1.digex.net> From: ucleaar Date: Thu Feb 16 22:39:18 1995 Subject: Re: Existence and occurrence of events (was: ago24 & replies) 15 Feb 95 20:01:57 PST.) X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 16 22:39:18 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu 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