From sentto-44114-2420-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Wed Apr 19 08:00:14 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 25619 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2000 08:00:13 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 19 Apr 2000 08:00:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 12991 invoked by uid 40001); 19 Apr 2000 09:01:43 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 12988 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2000 09:01:41 -0000 Received: from b05.egroups.com (207.138.41.189) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 19 Apr 2000 09:01:41 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2420-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Apr 2000 09:01:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 6704 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2000 09:01:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Apr 2000 09:01:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo24.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.68) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2000 09:01:37 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id h.4f.2a2184b (3927) for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 05:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4f.2a2184b.262ecfed@aol.com> To: lojban@onelist.com X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 05:01:33 EDT X-eGroups-From: Pycyn@aol.com From: pycyn@aol.com Subject: [lojban] RECORD: subjunctive Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This turns out to be mainly about contrary-to-fact conditionals, e.g., "If I had a million rupnu, I would be rich." The other major use of subjunctive forms in English, indirect discourse of various sorts, is handled nicely by leNU and careful choice of brivla. And it may be that CTF is as well. What is immediately clear is that 1) anai in its various forms is no help, since, when the protasis (if- clause) is false, as it is assumed to be here, the whole sentence is automatically true, for anai is the material conditional so handy for logicians since the -3rd century, but still read as "if". 2) tense markers in Lojban will probably not help, however much English subjunctives look like they belong with tenses. Lojban tenses really are just about the relative order of events in time and maybe even in linear time. Even if time is allowed to branch, reconstructing English subjunctives-as-tense in Lojban tenses need not get to the right places (if no past time has a future in which I have a million rupnu, then the CTF is again vacuously true). The generality of unmarked Lojban tenses does not help, sinc they also allow the vacuous fulfillment. 3) The move to possible worlds runs into the usual problem with this bit of technical smoke-and-mirrors when applied to real cases: if there are no possible worlds appropriately similar to this one in which I have a million rupnu, then the claim is again vacuously true; if there are possible worlds in which I have a million rupnu, are they as a result so different from this one as to make it unreasonable to think they are about the real (in this world) me. Or, worse, is it that the appropriate similarlities are so defined as to make the claim a tautology (since to have mean have a million requires also that I be put into the rich category)? And, of course, there are many possible worlds where I have a million rupnu and am not rich (the last days of the Weimar Republic or the US in the 1780s, for example), where everyone had a million or so but a pound of butter cost a billion. The "if I were Rothschild..." kind of CTFs make the problems of specifying possible worlds particularly obvious. The solution seems to be to ignore problem 3, as we usually do anyhow, and go with imaginary conditions, assuming virtually everything else (in particular my history and the economic facts of the world) remain the same and so use expressions like va'o (da'i) and leNU for the protasis. (The parenthesis here reflects the uncertainty whether x1 of vanbi, the source of va'o has to be an event that obtains or might be hypothetical. Since events exist even when they do not obtain, the consensus seems to be that this one can be hypothetical, leaving the obtaining one for tcini, which lacks a tag, as would be expected for a less useful notion.) Alternatively, one could use some appropriate eventconnector: causes, entails, necessitates, and the like between leNUs. This discussion prepposes that the claim is meant fairly literally, really about me and my million. It might, of course, be an indirect way to talk about a general situation, "Anyone with a million dollars is rich" In this case, it should be spelled out in this way, ro da.... Other kinds of implied generalizations might best be dealt with by giving the laws or lawlike conditions involved; causes and so on. Something similar might also work with genuinely singular CTFs, matters of character (If he had been there, he would have saved her), or commitment (If I were President, I would stand up to the Russkies) and so on. It was also suggested that translating CTFs required flagging the protasis as unlikely/false. While this did not obviously carry the day, some ways to do it efficiently were suggested. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your money connected @ OnMoney.com - the first Web site that lets you see and manage all of your finances all in one place. http://click.egroups.com/1/3012/2/_/17627/_/956134898/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com