| In a message dated 6/21/2001 7:42:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes: I suppose you're right. So now we're back where we were, because the Oh, the grammar is not all that bad. We need, however, to decide what the critter is to do. As I have said, I think the "possible worlds" talk -- outside of technical logic -- is a pretty bad one, since it goes so far toward reducing all speech acts to describing/asserting. In that view, though, making moves to other worlds would be rather like a tense, except that the world would be described situationally only, never by displacement (what would be the metric of displacement after all -- or even the direction?) I think that the UIs work rather better: they describe the displacement and permit laying stress when that is useful (it's the change in my economic status, not a change in me that is important in {mi ricfu da'i}, say). Which of these words we will use ({da'i}, {va'o} in a different way, probably some others) and how they correlate with various brivla (I think {sruma} goes nicely with {da'i} despite the different sources), is going to depend upon what we find when we really start looking at the various kinds of acts that may be out there: telling a tale is different from doing a proof and that from contingency plannig or speculation about character or... . We need to find out what our resources are as well (what words can reasonably play a role here?) As for your sentence, I think all you really needed to say was {ledo logji cmavo poi roroi mapti zoi <if, then> na da'inai roroi mapti zoi <if, then>} "What you call the logical connective that always matches "if, then" does not in fact always match "if, then":" the putative conditional doesn't work". Otherwise, I'd stick {se sruma} in. |