RE: Re: Subjunctives

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

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
> 
> la pycyn cusku di'e
> 
> >Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and
> >everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification.  As
> >Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w,
> >then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world 
> >in
> >which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in
> >this world.  On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a
> >million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a
> >muillion -- and says that there are some.  Clearly the latter is much 
> >closer
> >to what is wanted, though even it may not be quite right (Lojban has the
> >means to do this, but does not use it for this purpose).
> 
> And it is interesting that this solution: "in every possible
> world in which I have a million, w, I am rich in w" does not
> use the logical IF, and is remarkably similar to the {va'o}
> solution:
> 
>     va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu
>     Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
>     In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.

First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence
is basically saying that you are rich and you have a million, where the
having a million is the conditions in which you are rich.

Second, if you do have the {da'i}, you still can't get the "every world"
versus "some world" distinction, which was the point I intended in my
original contribution to this thread.

--And.