| In a message dated 6/24/2001 4:13:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu writes: We do not have a clear modal logic model in Lojban for the meanings of such Probably don't have them because logicians have tended to multiply the possibilities without coming down very hard for one of them as right. Prior always used to insist that it was the logicians' job to do just that, leaving it to experts in whatever to decide what was right. But there are precious few experts in most of the areas that modal logic encompasses -- indeed, few recognized areas, even. Lojban has gotten along with an informal notion of "possible worlds" -- which I now think may be a mistake -- and an even less clear notion of a situation (which allows some work, at least, with impossible worlds). I am inclined -- in keeping with the almost concurrent thread -- to see the need for more inquiry into the purposes for which language is used. As Cherlin points out, a lot of contrary-to-fact comments are intentions, not descriptions. Others are simply disguised generalizations (whatever those are). Others may be more like hopes. But we don't seem to know much about what the range of possibilities is here yet, nor how they are characterized, nor how they are represented in languages already fully developed. I think there is a good deal of work in the area of Chapters 13 and 14 (and, I suppose, 9, 10 and 11) before we have a reasonably satisfactory understanding. Oh and serious thoughts about what happens in English and other languages we live in as well. |