From robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR Mon Jan 31 01:02:47 2000 X-Digest-Num: 349 Message-ID: <44114.349.1891.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:02:47 +0200 (EET) From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: Subjunctive? X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1891 On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 C.D.Wright@solipsys.compulink.co.uk wrote: > From: C.D.Wright@solipsys.compulink.co.uk > > > > If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner > > > then I'd be rich. > > > > why is this a complicated issue, doi jbopre? > > > > is there something wrong with lu > > "ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu" > > li'u? > > The point is that a logical if/then is always true if > the first part is false, and the whole issue about a > subjunctive is that the first part is always false. > The logical if/then simply does not carry the same > implications that the English does, and the question > is - how can the following be translated accurately: > > If I were to be given a million pounds > then I'd be rich. > > Whatever the lojban version is, it must carry the same > implication concerning the implausibility of the first > part of the statement. > This is where I disagree, though a lot depends on your interpretation of the word "translation" (see also Jorge's response to my earlier post). I would hold that a translation should include the important information contained in the original (of course) but does not need to include all the information. For example, in translating "I went on Monday"' I would probably say {mi klama de'i la padjed.} not {mi pu klama tu de'i la padjed.} since I would rely on context for the tense and direction information, and would only include them if there was some danger of misinterpretation (e.g. the listener might think that I was coming, not going, or that I meant next Monday rather than last Monday). Similarly, with the million dollars example, I do not think that it is normally necessary to inform the listener that I do not, and probably will never, have a million dollars. For example, in Turkish there are three alternatives in tensing the conditional here: bir milyon dolarIm olursa - aorist tense; likely event bir milyon dolarIm olsaydi - past tense; counterfactual bir milyon dolarIm olsa - untensed; possibility of event not specified. I would only use the counterfactual if I wanted to emphasise the fact that it is impossible (probably adding "kes~ke" - "if only") and would apply the same principle to Lojban. As for the semantics of IF, I do not see any major problems. Granted, it includes the possibility that I may be rich if I do not possess a million dollars, but this is true in any case, since I am also rich if I possess two million dollars, 999,999 dollars, or no money at all but a large quantity of gold. However, it might be clearer to use a bridi rather than a connective, e.g. lenu mi ponse lo megdo rupnu cu nibli lenu mi ricfu for the hypothetical example we've been discussing. However, we would normally want to say what we would _do_ if we had a million dollars, in which case {mukti} would be more appropriate. co'o mi'e robin.