Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: possible worlds

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:30:47 -0400

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 09:03:44PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/20/2001 6:25:42 PM Central Daylight Time, 
> [email-masked] writes:
> 
> 
> > .i le da'i logji cmavo poi roroi mapti zoi <if, then> 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 <if, then>".

Without the {da'i}, I would be talking about "the logical connective which
always applies to <if, then>". 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