From a.rosta@pmail.net Sun Jan 23 14:44:00 2000
X-Digest-Num: 343
Message-ID: <44114.343.1837.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 22:44:00 -0000
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>
Subject: RE: Subjunctive?
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1837

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.