From rob@twcny.rr.com Thu Jun 21 12:00:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 21 Jun 2001 19:00:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 26181 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2001 18:59:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Jun 2001 18:59:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout1.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.146) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Jun 2001 18:59:47 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.139]) by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5LIwOf24161 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:58:24 -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 ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:58:23 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15D9cA-0000AT-00 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:55:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:55:37 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: possible worlds Message-ID: <20010621145537.B578@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 Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:04:43PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > 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"? I suppose you're right. So now we're back where we were, because the "possible worlds" cmavo can't be a UI - it doesn't have enough grammatical structure that way. It may have to be a xVV cmavo. (It feels icky to use xVV cmavo when there are empty cmavo like {bi'a} and {ci'a} at our disposal, but oh well.) If so, I would suggest that it should be a tense. -- Rob Speer