From rob@twcny.rr.com Tue Jun 19 15:32:10 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 19 Jun 2001 22:32:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 63905 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2001 22:32:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Jun 2001 22:32:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.165) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Jun 2001 22:32:10 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5JMUkW22649 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:30:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:30:45 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15CTya-0000Jl-00 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:28:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:28:00 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] possible worlds Message-ID: <20010619182800.C1055@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <9god7p+gpgj@eGroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9god7p+gpgj@eGroups.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8163 On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 08:38:17PM -0000, A.W.T. wrote: > Am I missing something in the Book or is the problem with possible worlds (i.e. the subjunctive etc. issue) still unsolved? Up to > the moment I'm unsatisfied with sentences like "I should have done...", "If I were rich..." (Se fossi ricco mi comprarei una villa...) > and the like. > Are those venerable old gentlemen still sticking to the "dead language"* Loglan more aware of problems like those! Isn't e.g. the way > pointed out at "http://www.loglan.org/Articles/I-would-if-I-could.html" a possible approach? IMHO, lojban attitudinals, > evidentials, discursives etc. are very good and unique lojbanic features, yet do not solve here. The heavy discussion on extending > their functional range (which I do not share) shows that there still is lack of things the kind mentioned above. I have to agree with you here - I cannot quite understand how a UI cmavo can switch us to another possible world in some contexts and leave us in the same world in others. Though it's okay for attitudinals to be non-specific, there needs to be a clear (and not subject to various interpretations) way of saying such a sentence. I think if we got this resolved, we could come to a useful conclusion on the uses of the logical connectives - the last time that thread happened, it got bogged down when the subjunctive (or Lojban's lack of it) reared its ugly head. Incidentally, I'm not even sure which UI cmavo (besides .ei, which is an attitudinal and thus cannot be used for anything specific) have been suggested for this purpose, since I've always seen the subjunctive carefully avoided instead of used. -- Rob Speer