Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 01:41:29 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: ago24 & replies
In-reply-to: (Your message of Tue, 14 Feb 95 00:54:52 T.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HN0TIAXF6U0005QO@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1286
Lines: 28

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