Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0ritWD-00001pC; Mon, 27 Feb 95 02:40 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3727; Mon, 27 Feb 95 02:41:14 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3724; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 02:41:14 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3063; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 01:37:20 +0100 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 00:38:48 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: On {lo} and existence X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sun, 26 Feb 95 13:40:28 EST.) Content-Length: 3521 Lines: 84 Jorge: > > > mi senva lo ninmu no'u mi > > > ije mi nanmu > > > i seni'ibo lo ninmu cu nanmu > > It can't be true in this world, but there might be some world in which > > this could be true. > It is true in this world. Each of the three sentences > (with your interpretation of {lo}) can be true in this world. Right. > > The process is analogous to deciding whether {le nanmu cu ninmu} > > is true. First the hearer must ascertain who {le nanmu} refers to. > Exactly. What you suggest in practice is that {lo} is nonspecific > nonveridical. I think that goes against the canon. I don't see why it's nonveridical. On the contrary: {lo broda} makes an implicit claim that the referent really is a broda, rather than merely being described as such. > > That is, in this real world I can truthfully say "I described > > my wings". > Meaning "I said that I have wings"? No. Meaning something like "I said my wings are white", or suchlike. > That smells of sumti raising. Maybe "I drew-a-picture-of my wings" is a clearer example. > Can you write "I described my wings" using predicate logic? In universe U Ex is my wings, & in universe R I described x In universe U Ex is my wings, & in universe R I drew-a-pic-of x > > > You can't say "I don't have wings, but they are very pretty". > > That's right. It's only certain things like describees that don't > > have to exist in the same universe as the universe in which the > > main predication obtains. > I think that's sumti raising in disguise. You may be right. How would you unraise draw-a-pic-of? > Does {mi skicu lo mi nelci} entail {mi skicu da}? > Then what is the answer to {mi skicu da poi mo}? I think it must entail {mi skicu da}. The answer to {mo} would have to be "broda in universe U", or "se skicu in universe R". > > > > If they can't both be true, then {lo nu} must denote something > > > > that really happens. That would be very inconvenient. > > > Unless {nu } means "x1 is a potential event of ". > > > Potential in R, independently of whether it happens or not in some U. > > You'd have to explain to me how one ascertains whether something > > is potential. > For every , {da poi nu } is defined as a potential event. > A potential event can happen, in which case it is an actual event, > or never happen, in which case it remains a potential event only. > (I don't like to define {nu} this way, I'm just trying to justify > it's use for irrealis events). How do I ascertain whether something is a potential event if it is of the never-happening variety? > > > But I agree that {lo nu} should denote something that really happens. > > > Unfortunately, usage probably will decide against that. > > This, you will realize, is why I, having originally taken the same > > position as you, have elected to support the opposing view. > My problem is with your extension of this inconvenience to objects. > To let {lo nu klama} be an event that never happens is bad enough, > but to let {lo mlatu} be something that is never a cat is too much > for me. "Never" in this universe. Not in other universes. What you call an extension of an inconvience, I call transforming inconsistency into consistency. The alternative route to consistency is to require {dahi} for nu that don't necessarily ever happen. Or we can let the inconsitency stand, with {nu} by default exceptionally being {dahi nu}, and all other selbri defaulting to {dahinai broda}. Any of these three is okay by me. --- And