velju'o/epistemology

[bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU]

faupel@trshp.trs.ntc.nokia.com cuska di'e

    ....why not solve the problem of not being able to talk about
    Elves and the such like by inventing a tense that would get us to
    the (imaginary) location in which they do exist.

This has been done using a discursive.  Suppose I say:

    mi prami satre         lo pa jirna xirma
    mi pamsa'e             lo pavjirnyxirma
    I with love stroke/rub that which is truly a unicorn.

You say

    ki'a
    <confusion!>

I then say

    da'i mi pamsa'e lo pavjirnyxirma

The {da'i} means the realm of discourse is hypothetical, I am
*supposing* that I am petting that which is truly a unicorn.

Alternatively, I could claim that unicorns really, truly exist, under
a particular epistemology:

    mi pamsa'e          lo pavjirnyxirma   be vedu'o lo ranmi
    I  pet that which is truly a unicorn under epistemology myth.

In the Middle ages, people bought and sold narwhale tusks that they
thought were unicorn horns:

    su'o lo selgu'e    be fi lo ropno
            [se gugde]
    Some of the people of the land of Europe

        puzu'u
        for a long interval sometime in the past

        vecnu lo jirna
        sold that which is truly a horn

        be lo pavjirnyxirma              be vedu'o lo jitfa
        of that which is truly a unicorn by epistemology false


As far as I can see, the problems regarding the veridicality of {lo
pavjirnyxirma} only occur when speaker and listener both agree the
unicorn does not exist in the epistemology of the conversation.  But
in that case, it is bad grammar, as well as false, to use {lo} instead
of {le}.

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us
    25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road     bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (413) 298-4725