From sentto-44114-1890-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Mon Jan 31 08:55:49 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 7872 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2000 08:55:48 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 31 Jan 2000 08:55:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 15123 invoked by uid 40001); 31 Jan 2000 08:57:26 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 15120 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2000 08:57:26 -0000 Received: from hm.egroups.com (208.48.218.15) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 31 Jan 2000 08:57:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1890-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 31 Jan 2000 08:57:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 14145 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2000 08:57:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.10.36 with QMQP; 31 Jan 2000 08:57:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO firat.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr) (139.179.10.13) by 10.1.10.27 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2000 08:57:22 -0000 Received: from mugla (robin@mugla [139.179.10.11]) by firat.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA24200 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:58:44 +0200 (EET) X-Sender: robin@mugla To: lojban@onelist.com In-Reply-To: <200001261911.TAA18255@nickel.cix.co.uk> Message-ID: 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: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:02:47 +0200 (EET) From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: [lojban] Subjunctive? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Robin Turner 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. --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com