From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Jun 20 19:34:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 21 Jun 2001 02:34:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 94715 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2001 02:34:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jun 2001 02:34:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.166) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2001 02:34:55 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5L2XU823302 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.101]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:33:31 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15CuF5-0000U5-00 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:30:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:30:47 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: possible worlds Message-ID: <20010620223047.B1799@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:03:44PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/20/2001 6:25:42 PM Central Daylight Time, > rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > > > > .i le da'i logji cmavo poi roroi mapti zoi cu du lo da'i logji > > cmavo poi da'inai na zasti > > > Something ain't quite right here -- and in a previous post from the same > source. I guess that -- whether discursive or "attitudinal" -- {da'i} can go > anywhere in a sentence, but it seems pretty clear that in at least some > places here it is adjectival to {logji cmavo}, meaning either "supposed" or > "{da'i}-like" Why would it be adjectival? If I were talking about the word {da'i} itself, I would have said something involving {zo da'i}. Here I was using it for its newfound purpose of describing possible worlds. What I was using it for was "the supposed logical connective which always applies to ". Without the {da'i}, I would be talking about "the logical connective which always applies to ". However, no such connective exists, and that sentence would logically fall apart because of that. So I used {da'i} to refer to this object in a possible world where such a thing would exist (and I pity the inhabitants of that world and the broken version of Lojban they're stuck with). -- Rob Speer