From sentto-44114-1836-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sun Jan 23 22:43:12 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 9022 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2000 22:43:08 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 23 Jan 2000 22:43:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 28598 invoked by uid 40001); 23 Jan 2000 22:44:39 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 28595 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2000 22:44:37 -0000 Received: from ch.egroups.com (208.48.218.21) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 23 Jan 2000 22:44:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1836-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jan 2000 22:44:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 11871 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2000 22:44:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.10.37 with QMQP; 23 Jan 2000 22:44:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.pemail2.net) (195.92.25.8) by 10.1.10.27 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2000 22:44:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 12133 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2000 22:44:26 -0000 Received: from m918-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com (HELO andrew) (62.252.15.150) by mailhost.pemail2.net with SMTP; 23 Jan 2000 22:44:26 -0000 To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000122022346.32681.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:44:00 -0000 From: "And Rosta" Subject: RE: [lojban] Subjunctive? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "And Rosta" Jorge to The Edward Blevins > >Another example, how would I say "If I had a million dollars, I'd > >be rich." in Lojban? > > > >I can say: > > > >ganai mi ponse le megdo be le rupnu gi mi ricfu > > > >which I would translate as: > > > >If I have a million dollars then I am rich. > > > >Which is subtlely different. > > It is actually radically different, and it doesn't > really say what you want. I do not have a million dollars, > and therefore this two sentences are both true and > utterly uninformative: > > ganai mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu gi mi ricfu > "If I have a million dollars then I am rich." > > ganai mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu gi mi pindi > "If I have a million dollars then I am poor." > > Both true. Both uninformative. > > >Do others think this is a useful distinction, or do I just > >have english on the brain? > > What we want to say is something more like: > > va'oda'i le nu mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu kei mi ricfu > "Under the hypothetical conditions that I have (would have) > a million dollars, I am (would be) rich." > > That's how I see it anyway. Jorge's method is probably the most convenient. But here is a more logic-based method of doing conditionals (which, as you & Jorge point out, is not at all the same as logical IF). [I say "more logic- based" partly because the analysis below gets closer to the 'true' meaning, and partly because "da'i" is, I think, somewhat too vaguely understood.] For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, in w if I have a million dollars then I am rich. = For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, in w either I am rich or I don't have a million dollars. "If I had a million dollars then I might be able to retire" (as opposed to "then I *would* be able to retire"): For *some* possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, in w if I have a million dollars then I am able to retire. = For some possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, in w either I am able to retire or I don't have a million dollars. To Lojbanize this, you'd need a predicate meaning "x1 is a world (relevantly similar to this one) in which x2 is true/obtains)". {da} as x1 would give you "if ... might". To get "if ... would" you'd have to have {ro da poi world} or something equivalent. But a plain {ro da} as x1 would work if you had another predicate defined as "either x1 is a world in which x2 obtains or x1 is not a world". It would be nice if we could do this by forming a lujvo in selma'o NU, where x2 (the state of affairs that obtains) is the contents of the NU phrase, and where x1 is the x1 of the NU, but I am pretty certain that NU is not extensible. Changing topic: English has indicative/subjunctive contrasts such as: I insist that he go. [= I order it to be the case that he goes] I insist that he goes. [= I vigorously assert it to be true that he goes] In Lojban both subordinate clauses would be translated with (I guess) {le du'u}, but you'd have to use different main brivla. The semantics of the brivla specifies whether or not "broda X" is true only if X is true. --And. --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU! Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons! Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com