Message-Id: <m0rgXH2-000021C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 1995 07:29:04 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      events - repsonse to And
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 5379
Lines: 111

>From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
>Subject:      Re: events
>Lojbab:
>> I think I'm missing something here.  A bridi claim "broda" is of course
>> a claim about the universe (of discourse).  Likewise "nu broda".
>> A description sumti is NOT a claim about the universe - it is a way of
>> talking about a relationship by reference.  "lo [unicorn]" is also not
>> talking about something that necessarily exists in the universe.
>
>"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).

There have been no final decisions on much of anything since last
LogFest.  We have a stable language through lack of an active 'academy'
to decide issues.  (With you and Jorge raising new deep philsophical
issues faster than anyone else can understand them, much less resolve
them, the language is likely to continue to be thus 'stable').

>> 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'.

>> This just echoes back to the old "lo" vs.  "da poi" thing again.
>> "da poi nu broda zo'u brode" DOES make a subordinate claim that
>> "there exists a X that is such an event in the universe of discourse,
>
>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.

>> but the recent folderol seems to have led to this meaning more that
>> we are defining the universe to be one in which
>> such an event occurs as much as we are restricting X".
>
>I don't understand you.

I tried to explain this above.  If "lo" = "dapoi", then talking about
imaginary things is modfiying the definition of the universe to include
those things.

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.

>> But regardlesss how dapoi debates resolve, "lo" is +veridical but
>> neutral on the +/- real-universe feature.
>
>This has a certain appeal.  But this did not emerge from last year's
>thorough discussion, & nor from a similar one a year or two earlier.  In
>fact, judging by last year's discussion, what you say is false.
>
>How about making a formal proposal of what you say?

As far as I know, that has been the long-term status quo - never modified,
but much argued about in the "any" debate.  In a separate posting I
collected several messages on this topic from late last year that I
believe show this.

>> "I managed to go" is most likely "mi snada lonu mi klama" where the
>> realis is implied by snada, OR "[ca'a]ba'o nu mi klama" where putting us
>> in the aftermath of the 'going' implies both realis and past tense.
>
>Or, more simply, "mi troci lo dahinai nu mi klama", which works even if
>we accept your views on the irrealis nature of {lo} (i.e.  +/-real).
>(Unless I've wholly misapprehended the import of {dahi(nai)}.)

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.  I think "managed", and indeed "try" almost
invariably have some "in mind" restrictions.  Example "I tried to find
my book.  I failed, but my wife found it for me three days later.  (Thus
it is true that I now have 'found' my book in that it is no longer lost.
"mi troci lo da'i facki lemi cukta" is true because I did try for it,
and metalinguistically there was in fact an event of finding.  But I
would be dissembling to claim in English that "I *managed* to find the
book" merely because I tried, and the event just happened to occur not
as a result of my efforts.

But I think we are arguing more about the English, than about the
Lojban.

lojbab