From pycyn@aol.com Sat Feb 16 15:50:39 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 16 Feb 2002 23:50:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 401 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 23:50:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Feb 2002 23:50:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 23:50:39 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.4b.187096e8 (4323)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 18:50:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4b.187096e8.29a04a3f@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 18:50:23 EST
Subject: Re: [lojban] Subjunctives and worlds
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_4b.187096e8.29a04a3f_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_4b.187096e8.29a04a3f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 2/16/2002 4:53:58 PM Central Standard Time, 
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


> Yes, {mu'ei} suggests "possibilities" the same way that {roi}
> suggests "occasions", but determining exactly what an occasion
> is would be about as hard as determining a possibility.
> 

I assume they are all at least events, which is a class we are stuck with in 
any case (remember that all events exist even if they do not hold). I assume 
that {mu'ei} as a tag takes {le nu}. In any case, this is getting away from 
being about possible worlds to being about conditions, which seems the right 
way to go.

<To me {ba} does not
suggest a multiplicity of futures but only the one that gets
realized, so I could never get to an alternate present using
{puba}.>

Yes, people differ on that a lot: some see it one way, some the other, and 
some somewhere in between as a totally deterministic system (time might 
branch but doesn't). The branching is built into SAE, but can be resisted 
locally.


--part1_4b.187096e8.29a04a3f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 2/16/2002 4:53:58 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Yes, {mu'ei} suggests "possibilities" the same way that {roi}<BR>
suggests "occasions", but determining exactly what an occasion<BR>
is would be about as hard as determining a possibility.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
I assume they are all at least events, which is a class we are stuck with in any case (remember that all events exist even if they do not hold).&nbsp; I assume that {mu'ei} as a tag takes {le nu}.&nbsp; In any case, this is getting away from being about possible worlds to being about conditions, which seems the right way to go.<BR>
<BR>
&lt;To me {ba} does not<BR>
suggest a multiplicity of futures but only the one that gets<BR>
realized, so I could never get to an alternate present using<BR>
{puba}.&gt;<BR>
<BR>
Yes, people differ on that a lot: some see it one way, some the other, and some somewhere in between as a totally deterministic system (time might branch but doesn't).&nbsp; The branching is built into SAE, but can be resisted locally.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_4b.187096e8.29a04a3f_boundary--

