From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Mar 13 18:39:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@shiva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 14 Mar 2001 02:39:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 71110 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 02:39:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2001 02:39:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO shiva.sixgirls.org) (206.252.141.232) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 03:40:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by shiva.sixgirls.org (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2E2FO800619 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:15:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:15:24 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] I almost caught the train In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5824 On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > la xod cusku di'e > > >If I pause my retelling of a story at the time right before > >a fight appears to break out, I don't see why my listeners should assume > >anything about whether or not the fight actually occurs. > > They shouldn't. On the other hand, if you tell me "you know, > this morning Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting > when the bell rang", then I will probably assume that the > fighting did not occur. Why? Because if it had occured, the > information you are giving me is fairly irrelevant, you > would have told me that they fought, not that they were on > the verge. It is nothing more than an assumption, of course, > based on the further assumption that your purpose in > telling me what you tell me is more than just uttering > true but uninformative or misleading statements. I will > assume that you are telling me the most relevant fact about > their fighting, and if being on the verge is the most > relevant then they probably did not actually fight. The point may not be that the verge of fighting was the most important thing; only that THAT is when the bell rang. Further, the phrase 'verge of fighting' means that it's more likely than not that the fight will occur Why then wouldn't you assume that fight did occur? Really, you would assume the fight occurred if the event was completely unrelated and didn't stop it, and you'd assume that fight did not occur if the event was related and thus prevented it. For instance, "Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting when the teacher entered the room", one might assume the teacher stopped the fight. But with "Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting when, miles away and unknown to either of them, the Taliban started shelling Buddhist statues", it's assumed this didn't intrude on the fight, therefore it continued and occurred. However, here's an event that is related but probably won't impede the fight: "Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting when Mary told Peter that Paul had molested his pet Lemur the week before." It seems both assumptions are defensible. Perhaps we should assume neither, as a general principle, but only as context implies.