From pycyn@aol.com Sun Feb 17 06:33:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 17 Feb 2002 14:33:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 34473 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2002 14:33:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Feb 2002 14:33:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Feb 2002 14:33:51 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.ce.21bc655c (4470) for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 09:33:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 09:33:45 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Subjunctives and worlds To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ce.21bc655c.29a11949_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13335 --part1_ce.21bc655c.29a11949_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/16/2002 8:12:54 PM Central Standard Time, 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. 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). >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? --part1_ce.21bc655c.29a11949_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/16/2002 8:12:54 PM Central Standard Time, 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.

<Jorge is right. The "possible worlds" gloss of mu'ei and ba'oi is
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).

<we would
> >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?




 --part1_ce.21bc655c.29a11949_boundary--