From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Mon Feb 18 06:59:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 18 Feb 2002 14:59:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 42586 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2002 14:59:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Feb 2002 14:59:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2002 14:59:43 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.43.101]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020218145940.QNXD8848.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:59:40 +0000 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Subjunctives and worlds Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:58:59 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77248971 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13346 pc: > a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > To say that English's 'subjunctives' -- which we're using as a term > for a semantically rather than grammatically-defined construction -- > use only temporal notions is to take a hardline monosemy position > -- i.e. to deny polysemy of could/would. Furthermore, an important > ingredient in subjunctives if "if", and it is hard to see "if" as > a temporal notion. > > Well, I see "could/would" precisely as using tense terms, but I'll > agree that other things might be involved in a minor way. As for > "if", I don't see it as subjunctive, but as setting up conditions, > which may then being either subjunctive or not. > > simply an attempt to model in a formal and explicit way their meaning. > I would do exactly the same for English conditional _could/would_. > If you have a preferred way of modelling English conditional > _could/would_, I expect it could be applied to mu'ei and ba'oi.> > > I am sure that your intentions are as you say, however I see the > discussion around these intentions clearly going into the object > language metaphysics, which is my concern. I don't object to {mu'ei} > as a word, since I do think we need a new one (well, three actually). I see the essence of {mu'ei}, which serves to express English _would, could, maybe, if_, as involving possibilities -- whether you call them possible worlds or possible states of affairs is a secondary matter, to be decided according to taste or to philosophical soundness. > > >almost > > >certainly use one with linear past and branching futures. > > ba'oi does that.> > > I haven't come across {ba'oi} that I can find. How does it work? It's in one or more places in the wiki maze. The idea is that just as mu'ei quantifies across possible worlds that are relevantly similar to the local world, so ba'oi quantifies over possible futures -- i.e. over possible relevantly similar worlds whose pasts are identical to the past of the local world. Again, if "world" is a bothersome notion, please recast the formulation as you think fit. --And.