From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jan 23 15:54:16 2000
X-Digest-Num: 343
Message-ID: <44114.343.1838.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:54:16 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Subjunctive?


la and cusku di'e

> 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.

But how do I determine which worlds are relevantly similar?
Obviously I have to admit some worlds where I have a million
dollars, but I also have to exclude all worlds where most
people have a million dollars. In other words, I have to
admit only those worlds where my having a million dollars
means I am rich. But then there is no content in the
expression, all the content is in the selection of relevant
worlds. Isn't it?

>"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.

But this one fails even worse. Since I don't have a million
dollars, "If I had a million dollars then I might buy Microsoft
from Bill" is true, according to your expansion, because
indeed in some worlds relevantly similar to this one
(in all of those in which I don't have a million dollars
in fact, including this one) "If I have a million dollars
then I am able to buy Microsoft" is true.

You have to restrict it to worlds where I do have a million
dollars. Then you are just saying: "In some worlds where
I have a million dollars, I am able retire."


>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.

If "I insist that he go" is something like "mi minde fi le du'u
ko'a klama" then the truth value of "ko'a klama" doesn't really
enter into it, does it?

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com