Message-Id: <m0rgdoN-00001pC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 20 Feb 1995 14:29:45 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Existence and occurrence of events (was: ago24 & replies)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1272
Lines: 28

And & pc:
> > > 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.
> >       Well, it might just come to pass without my effort being at all
> > relevant to its coming to pass.  If an earthquake moves a stone from my
> > path after my best efforts have failed, I cannot claim to have either
> > managed or succeeded in moving the stone, even though I tried to and the
> > stone is indeed moved.
> I take your point.

But what is the event here? Is the event I tried for that "the earthquake
move the stone", or that "I move the stone"?

In Lojban "I try to move the stone" is {mi troci le nu mi muvgau le rokci}.
If the event I try for occurs, then I've succeeded. If some other related
event occurs, but not the one I've tried for, then I've failed.

Even if I do move the stone at some other time, but not when I tried, then
the event that I tried to accomplish, and the other event are two separate
ones.

If "the" event I tried for occurs, then I've accomplished what I tried.
I don't see how that event can come to pass without me thereby succeeding
in my trial.

Jorge