From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Mar 13 20:01:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 14 Mar 2001 04:01:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 93450 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2001 04:01:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 14 Mar 2001 04:01:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.174) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Mar 2001 05:02:34 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:01:29 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.58 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:01:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.58] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] I almost caught the train Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:01:28 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2001 04:01:29.0227 (UTC) FILETIME=[729C55B0:01C0AC3B] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >The point may not be that the verge of fighting was the most important >thing; only that THAT is when the bell rang. Right, in that case the fighting probably did take place. Of course, we would know what the point was if we had the full context. >Further, the phrase 'verge of fighting' means that it's more likely than >not that the fight will occur Why then wouldn't you assume that fight did >occur? I can only repeat myself: because there is not much point in reporting it unless it did not take place. (Unless it is just as a reference for some other event.) >Really, you would assume the fight occurred if the event was completely >unrelated and didn't stop it, and you'd assume that fight did not occur if >the event was related and thus prevented it. Right, and usually you would not mix in an unrelated event. >For instance, "Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting when the >teacher entered the room", one might assume the teacher stopped the fight. >But with "Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting when, miles >away and unknown to either of them, the Taliban started shelling Buddhist >statues", it's assumed this didn't intrude on the fight, therefore it >continued and occurred. But why would anyone want to say something like that? >However, here's an event that is related but probably won't impede the >fight: "Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting when Mary told Peter >that Paul had molested his pet Lemur the week before." If the fighting did eventually take place, I would say instead: "Peter and Paul were _already_ on the verge of fighting when Mary told Peter that Paul had molested his pet Lemur the week before." >It seems both assumptions are defensible. Perhaps we should assume >neither, as a general principle, but only as context implies. Suppose you are trying to teach an artificial intelligence program what inferences it can make when it hears {pu pu'o}. In the absence of further information, I would say that it is more likely that the event did not eventually take place. You would say chances are 50-50? Of course we agree that context can change things, that was never under discussion. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.