Re: [lojban] Subjunctives and worlds

[pycyn@aol.com]

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?