RE: [lojban] Subjunctive?

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>]

From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>

Jorge to The Edward Blevins
> >Another example, how would I say "If I had a million dollars, I'd
> >be rich." in Lojban?
> >
> >I can say:
> >
> >ganai mi ponse le megdo be le rupnu gi mi ricfu
> >
> >which I would translate as:
> >
> >If I have a million dollars then I am rich.
> >
> >Which is subtlely different.
> 
> It is actually radically different, and it doesn't
> really say what you want. I do not have a million dollars,
> and therefore this two sentences are both true and
> utterly uninformative:
> 
> ganai mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu gi mi ricfu
> "If I have a million dollars then I am rich."
> 
> ganai mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu gi mi pindi
> "If I have a million dollars then I am poor."
> 
> Both true. Both uninformative.
> 
> >Do others think this is a useful distinction, or do I just
> >have english on the brain?
> 
> What we want to say is something more like:
> 
> va'oda'i le nu mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu kei mi ricfu
> "Under the hypothetical conditions that I have (would have)
> a million dollars, I am (would be) rich."
> 
> That's how I see it anyway.

Jorge's method is probably the most convenient. But here is a more
logic-based method of doing conditionals (which, as you & Jorge
point out, is not at all the same as logical IF). [I say "more logic-
based" partly because the analysis below gets closer to the 'true'
meaning, and partly because "da'i" is, I think, somewhat too vaguely
understood.]

  For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, 
    in w if I have a million dollars then I am rich.

  =   For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, 
    in w either I am rich or I don't have a million dollars.

"If I had a million dollars then I might be able to retire" (as opposed
to "then I *would* be able to retire"):

  For *some* possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, 
    in w if I have a million dollars then I am able to retire.

  =   For some possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, 
    in w either I am able to retire or I don't have a million dollars.

To Lojbanize this, you'd need a predicate meaning "x1 is a world (relevantly
similar to this one) in which x2 is true/obtains)". {da} as x1 would
give you "if ... might". To get "if ... would" you'd have to have {ro da poi
world} or something equivalent. But a plain {ro da} as x1 would work if
you had another predicate defined as "either x1 is a world in which x2 
obtains or x1 is not a world".

It would be nice if we could do this by forming a lujvo in selma'o NU,
where x2 (the state of affairs that obtains) is the contents of the NU 
phrase, and where x1 is the x1 of the NU, but I am pretty certain that
NU is not extensible.  


Changing topic: English has indicative/subjunctive contrasts such as:

   I insist that he go.  [= I order it to be the case that he goes]
   I insist that he goes. [= I vigorously assert it to be true that he goes]

In Lojban both subordinate clauses would be translated with (I guess)
{le du'u}, but you'd have to use different main brivla. The semantics
of the brivla specifies whether or not "broda X" is true only if X is
true.

--And.

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

    GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
  <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com