From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jun 21 09:07:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 21 Jun 2001 16:07:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 54596 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2001 16:04:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jun 2001 16:04:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2001 16:04:59 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.e5.80a6d99 (4465) for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:04:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:04:43 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: possible worlds To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e5.80a6d99.2863751b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_e5.80a6d99.2863751b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/20/2001 9:40:10 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > 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). > The point is well taken, as I said, but will this way of saying it really work? Wherever {da'i} occurs, it presumably works to throw the whole sentence into the suppositive mood (I'm using the official rules, of course). Whether the repeated {da'i} throws it into a second-order supposition or not, I can't say, nor can I work out the rhetorical effect of putting the {da'i} after {le}. At a guess the latter focuses the goal of the supposition on the sumti which {le} begins, which is, I think, your goal, more or less. So this seems to say "Suppose that there is a logical connective which always matches 'if then' ..." or, more literally but clearly not what you want, "Suppose that the logical connective which always matches 'if then' is a logical connective that does not in fact exist" Now all of this does make for a problem, since it involves a referring phrase which you want to say does not refer. And yet it does refer (in fact, to {ganai...gi...}); what it does not do is match "if..., then..." Does {le a'o mi se prami} mean "the beloved I hope for"? --part1_e5.80a6d99.2863751b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/20/2001 9:40:10 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:

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 <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).

The point is well taken, as I said, but will this way of saying it really
work? Wherever {da'i} occurs, it presumably works to throw the whole
sentence into the suppositive mood (I'm using the official rules, of
course). Whether the repeated {da'i} throws it into a second-order
supposition or not, I can't say, nor can I work out the rhetorical effect of
putting the {da'i} after {le}. At a guess the latter focuses the goal of the
supposition on the sumti which {le} begins, which is, I think, your goal,
more or less.
So this seems to say "Suppose that there is a logical connective which always
matches 'if then' ..." or, more literally but clearly not what you want,
"Suppose that the logical connective which always matches 'if then' is a
logical connective that does not in fact exist" Now all of this does make
for a problem, since it involves a referring phrase which you want to say
does not refer. And yet it does refer (in fact, to {ganai...gi...}); what it
does not do is match "if..., then..."
Does {le a'o mi se prami} mean "the beloved I hope for"? --part1_e5.80a6d99.2863751b_boundary--