From sentto-44114-1872-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sat Jan 29 19:01:27 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 5756 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2000 19:01:26 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 29 Jan 2000 19:01:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 5693 invoked by uid 40001); 29 Jan 2000 19:02:56 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 5690 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2000 19:02:56 -0000 Received: from c3.egroups.com (208.48.218.20) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 29 Jan 2000 19:02:56 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1872-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Jan 2000 19:02:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 21285 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2000 19:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.10.35 with QMQP; 29 Jan 2000 19:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.pemail2.net) (195.92.25.8) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2000 19:02:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 9028 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2000 19:02:52 -0000 Received: from m453-mp1-cvx1c.lan.ntl.com (HELO andrew) (62.252.173.197) by mailhost.pemail2.net with SMTP; 29 Jan 2000 19:02:52 -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: <20000126203825.78650.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: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 19:03:44 -0000 From: "And Rosta" Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Subjunctives Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "And Rosta" > From: "Jorge Llambias" > > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and > >everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification. As > >Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w, > >then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world > >in > >which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in > >this world. On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a > >million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a > >muillion -- and says that there are some. Clearly the latter is much > >closer > >to what is wanted, though even it may not be quite right (Lojban has the > >means to do this, but does not use it for this purpose). > > And it is interesting that this solution: "in every possible > world in which I have a million, w, I am rich in w" does not > use the logical IF, and is remarkably similar to the {va'o} > solution: > > va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu > Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich. > In every world where I have a mill., I am rich. First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence is basically saying that you are rich and you have a million, where the having a million is the conditions in which you are rich. Second, if you do have the {da'i}, you still can't get the "every world" versus "some world" distinction, which was the point I intended in my original contribution to this thread. --And. --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com