* Tuesday, 2011-11-01 at 12:23 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > So rather than model merely telling us whether, given a proposition
> > P and a point w in the space of worlds, P holds at w, it instead tells
> > us whether, given a proposition P and a *subset* W of the space of
> > worlds, P holds at/in/on W.
>
> That's one way of thinking about tense. Another way is not to extract
> the time/space information out of the proposition at all, make it an
> integral part of the proposition, so that the tensed sentence "mi pu
> klama" is (roughly) equivalemt to the untensed sentence "lo nu mi
> klama cu purci", just like the tagged sentence "mi bai klama" is
> (roughly) equivalent to the untagged sentence "lo nu mi klama cu se
> bapli". In this view, space and time are just additional aspects of
> the world, not indices on worlds.
Yes, actually that is substantially different, and much better.
After all, {ba'o broda} doesn't indicate that {broda} won't hold in the
future - only that there is an event of brodaing which is wholly in the
past.
I think you've explained before how you derive a wholly defined version
of the "imaginary journey" model from this. Maybe I can understand it
better this time.
So I believe you have e.g.
{mi ba ba'o klama}
== {lo nu mi ba'o klama cu balvi}
== {lo nu lo nu mi klama cu mulcabna cu balvi}
(== {lo nu mi klama cu ba mulcabna})
Generally, tense predicates are binary, and events of them holding are
considered to take place at x2.
Conventions indicate that unless an unfilled x2 in the outermost tense
predicate is filled with the speaker's position, or whatever was set
with {ki}.
Sumtcita go in the x2, so
{mi pu lo nu do klama ku ba'o cliva}
== {lo nu lo nu mi cliva cu mulcabna cu purci lo nu do klama}
~~ "I'll have left by the time you come"
{mi pu ba'o lo nu do klama ku cliva}
== {lo nu lo nu mi cliva cu mulcabna lo nu do klama cu purci}
~~ "The event of [my leaving being complete when you come] is past"
~~ "You came after I'd left"
(this meaning for a ZAhO sumtcita being non-CLL)
Current grammar restrictions which disallow some strings of tense words
ought to be removed, since this scheme provides a rather clear semantics
for them.
Do I have you right?
Interaction with quantifier scope should be clear; e.g.
{ba ku ro do facki lo du'u mi vlipa}
== {lo nu ro do zgana lo du'u mi vlipa cu balvi}
~~ "one day, you will all see my power!"
{ro do ba facki lo du'u mi vlipa}
== {ro da poi me do zo'u da ba facki lo du'u mi vlipa}
== {ro da poi me do zo'u lo nu da facki lo du'u mi vlipa cu balvi}
~~ "each of you will one day see my power!"
(possibly at different times)
> > Suppose ko'a is assigned to a bunch of three lions, one of which is in
> > my garden, one of which is in my living room, and the third of which is
> > in Nairobi (I don't live in Nairobi).
> >
> > With this new setup, it's now consistent to have:
> >
> > xu ko'a vi le mi purdi cu cinfo .i na go'i
> > xu ko'a ne'i le mi surla kumfa cu cinfo .i na go'i
> > xu ko'a ne'i la nairobis cinfo .i na go'i
> > xu ko'a ga'u la terdi cu cinfo .i go'i
> >
> > So the upshot is that there's no need to make {ro lo broda cu broda} be
> > a tautology to have {lo vi cinfo} get only nearby lions; it wouldn't get
> > ko'a in the above example.
>
> If you don't want to go through many worlds, you can just ask whether
> these are true:
>
> xu lo nu ko'a cinfo cu zvati lo mi purdi
> xu lo nu ko'a cinfo cu nenri lo mi surla kumfa
> xu lo nu ko'a cinfo cu nenri la nairobis
> xu lo nu ko'a cinfo cu gapru la terdi
>
> That only involves understanding "zvati", "nenri" and "gapru", we
> don't need to concern ourselves with worlds or sets of worlds. So
> instead of asking where a certain proposition is true, you ask where a
> certain event takes place.
Yes. And there's no need for the answer to be "on such-and-such subset
of space-time".
> I would tend to agree with your answers to the ne'i questions. The
> last one makes me think of winged lions, or maybe lions in a space
> station, since presumably the Earth's atmosphere is part of the Earth.
{bu'u la terdi}, then?
> I'm not sure about the first one. (I will take it by "vi" you meant
> "bu'u"="fi'o se zvati", since for me "vi"="fi'o cmalu tersei".
I was aiming more for "within a small distance of". Do we have anything
for that?
> ) I think for "ko'a zvati ko'e" to be true, it is not necessary that
> ko'a be completely contained inside of ko'e, as with nenri. If you ask
> "xu ko'a cinfo bu'u lo mi purdi" I would prefer to answer "pa ko'a
> go'i" or "su'o ko'a go'i" or "me'i ko'a go'i" instead of either plain
> "go'i" or "na go'i" because whichever of those is true, with such an
> odd bundle of referents for "ko'a", it is unhelpful.
Sure.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpKeU0UNSsQh.pgp
Description: PGP signature