RE: Subjunctive?
Jorge Llambias
la and di'e mi spuda
> > Obviously I have to admit some worlds where I have a million
> > dollars, but I also have to exclude all worlds where most
> > people have a million dollars. In other words, I have to
> > admit only those worlds where my having a million dollars
> > means I am rich. But then there is no content in the
> > expression, all the content is in the selection of relevant
> > worlds. Isn't it?
>
>You are right, though your point is exaggerated by the example, which
>means "Anyone with a million dollars is rich" [in nonlogical form].
I think I agree. There is no difficulty in putting
"anyone with a million dollars is rich" into logical form.
Just the same as "if someone has a million dollars then
they're rich". No need for possible worlds there:
ro da zo'u ganai da ponse lo rupnu megdo gi da ricfu
For all x, if x has a million dollars, then x is rich.
If that's all "if I had a million dollars then I'd be rich"
means, then there is no problem. The problem appears
if we insist in using the word "mi" in the translation.
>Change
>it to "If I have/had a million dollars then I would/might buy a yacht"
>and your argument is less glaringly obvious, though still valid.
The restrictions to worlds where most people don't have
a million dollars was so as to avoid worlds where the inflation
in the US had been something like in Argentina, so that
everyone would have a million dollars, and it would not be
enough either to make you rich or buy you a yacht.
>Without
>thinking about it deeply, I think that it is correct that the content
>should be in the selection of relevant worlds.
But then we need a much more accurate way of identifying
those worlds. For someone who doesn't know that if you
have a million dollars then you are rich, telling them
that in all relevant possible worlds, if they have a million
dollars then they are rich does not tell them anything.
They would have to be told which worlds are relevant.
>If I insisted on avoiding r.q., would the following work?
>
> For some possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one),
> w, in w I am able to retire and I have a million dollars.
>
>In other words, "if p then would q" is "Aw: in w, q or not p", and
>"if p then might q" is "Ew, in w p and q".
There must be something wrong with that unless
"if I had a million dollars I might retire" has the
same logical content of "if I retired I might have
a million dollars".
I can't pinpoint exactly where the problem is, but it has
to do with the selection of relevant worlds. You are required
to understand the English phrase before you decide which
worlds are accepted and which are not, so the interesting
content of the translation into logical form is all
hidden there.
co'o mi'e xorxes
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
John Cowan
Jorge Llambias scripsit:
> The restrictions to worlds where most people don't have
> a million dollars was so as to avoid worlds where the inflation
> in the US had been something like in Argentina, so that
> everyone would have a million dollars, and it would not be
> enough either to make you rich or buy you a yacht.
Line of dialogue from a mercifully forgotten post-nuclear-holocaust
novel: "Oh, he wanted to give me a million dollars to go up to
his room with him, but I said nothing doing."
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
Looking for the lowest refinance rate for your mortgage?
GetSmart.com can help. We'll help you find the loan you
need - quick, easy, and FREE click
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/GetSmartRefinance ">Click Here</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
And Rosta
C.D. Wright (though Outlook claims it is from Pycyn):
> I feel that I have a good grasp of the majority of the
> grammar, but my vocabulary is only expanding slowly.
> As a result, I can't find a way of saying:
>
> If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner
> then I'd be rich.
>
> I guess what I want to say is:
>
> Regardless of the truth value of A,
> (A => B) is a valid assertion.
>
> Where: A = ( I have a million million pounds )
> and : B = ( mi ricfu )
>
>
> Yes?
Isn't that {gu}?
But anyway it doesn't work, does it, because it is truth-conditionally
equivalent to just {B or not A}.
A B or not A
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F F
--And.
Jorge Llambias
la and di'e mi spuda
> > Obviously I have to admit some worlds where I have a million
> > dollars, but I also have to exclude all worlds where most
> > people have a million dollars. In other words, I have to
> > admit only those worlds where my having a million dollars
> > means I am rich. But then there is no content in the
> > expression, all the content is in the selection of relevant
> > worlds. Isn't it?
>
>You are right, though your point is exaggerated by the example, which
>means "Anyone with a million dollars is rich" [in nonlogical form].
I think I agree. There is no difficulty in putting
"anyone with a million dollars is rich" into logical form.
Just the same as "if someone has a million dollars then
they're rich". No need for possible worlds there:
ro da zo'u ganai da ponse lo rupnu megdo gi da ricfu
For all x, if x has a million dollars, then x is rich.
If that's all "if I had a million dollars then I'd be rich"
means, then there is no problem. The problem appears
if we insist in using the word "mi" in the translation.
>Change
>it to "If I have/had a million dollars then I would/might buy a yacht"
>and your argument is less glaringly obvious, though still valid.
The restrictions to worlds where most people don't have
a million dollars was so as to avoid worlds where the inflation
in the US had been something like in Argentina, so that
everyone would have a million dollars, and it would not be
enough either to make you rich or buy you a yacht.
>Without
C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
> > then I'd be rich.
>
>
> is there something wrong with lu
> "ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu"
> li'u?
The point is that a logical if/then is always true if
the first part is false, and the whole issue about a
subjunctive is that the first part is always false.
The logical if/then simply does not carry the same
implications that the English does, and the question
is - how can the following be translated accurately:
If I were to be given a million pounds
then I'd be rich.
Whatever the lojban version is, it must carry the same
implication concerning the implausibility of the first
part of the statement.
cdw.
--
\\// ze'uku ko jmive gi'e snada
Robin Turner
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk wrote:
This is where I disagree, though a lot depends on your interpretation of
the word "translation" (see also Jorge's response to my earlier post). I
would hold that a translation should include the important information
contained in the original (of course) but does not need to include all the
information. For example, in translating "I went on Monday"' I would
probably say {mi klama de'i la padjed.} not {mi pu klama tu de'i la
padjed.} since I would rely on context for the tense and direction
information, and would only include them if there was some danger of
misinterpretation (e.g. the listener might think that I was coming, not
going, or that I meant next Monday rather than last Monday).
Similarly, with the million dollars example, I do not think that it is
normally necessary to inform the listener that I do not, and probably will
never, have a million dollars. For example, in Turkish there are three
alternatives in tensing the conditional here:
bir milyon dolarIm olursa - aorist tense; likely event
bir milyon dolarIm olsaydi - past tense; counterfactual
bir milyon dolarIm olsa - untensed; possibility of event not specified.
I would only use the counterfactual if I wanted to emphasise the fact that
it is impossible (probably adding "kes~ke" - "if only") and would apply
the same principle to Lojban.
As for the semantics of IF, I do not see any major problems. Granted, it
includes the possibility that I may be rich if I do not possess a million
dollars, but this is true in any case, since I am also rich if I possess
two million dollars, 999,999 dollars, or no money at all but a large
quantity of gold. However, it might be clearer to use a bridi rather than
a connective, e.g.
lenu mi ponse lo megdo rupnu cu nibli lenu mi ricfu
for the hypothetical example we've been discussing. However, we would
normally want to say what we would _do_ if we had a million dollars, in
which case {mukti} would be more appropriate.
co'o mi'e robin.
And Rosta
> I feel that I have a good grasp of the majority of the
> grammar, but my vocabulary is only expanding slowly.
> As a result, I can't find a way of saying:
>
> then I'd be rich.
>
C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
> > If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner
> > then I'd be rich.
>
> why is this a complicated issue, doi jbopre?
>
> is there something wrong with lu
> "ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu"
> li'u?
The point is that a logical if/then is always true if
the first part is false, and the whole issue about a
subjunctive is that the first part is always false.
The logical if/then simply does not carry the same
implications that the English does, and the question
is - how can the following be translated accurately:
If I were to be given a million pounds
then I'd be rich.
Whatever the lojban version is, it must carry the same
implication concerning the implausibility of the first
part of the statement.
cdw.
--
\\// ze'uku ko jmive gi'e snada
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
Free shipping through 1/31/2000 at Visualize.com
where you'll find limited edition prints & photographs
for your home, office, collection or gift-giving needs.
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/VisualizeJanuary ">Click Here</a>
Robin Turner
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> From: C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
>
> > > If I had a million pounds/dollars/kroner
> > > then I'd be rich.
> >
> > why is this a complicated issue, doi jbopre?
> >
> > is there something wrong with lu
> > "ganai mi ponse lo megdo rupnu gi mi ricfu"
> > li'u?
>
> The point is that a logical if/then is always true if
> the first part is false, and the whole issue about a
> subjunctive is that the first part is always false.
> The logical if/then simply does not carry the same
> implications that the English does, and the question
> is - how can the following be translated accurately:
>
> If I were to be given a million pounds
> then I'd be rich.
>
> Whatever the lojban version is, it must carry the same
> implication concerning the implausibility of the first
> part of the statement.
>
This is where I disagree, though a lot depends on your interpretation of
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests.
C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
I replied to a message but, of course, it went to
Pycyn. I hadn't kept a copy, so I asked Pycyn either
to forward it to the list, or to send it back to me
so I could post it. The former was chosen. Sorry
for any confusion.
Anyway, the point of my posting was obviously lost, so
let me try to make it painfully obvious at the risk of
belabourng what some of you already know, but no-one
seems to be talking about ...
The subjunctive carries two pieces of information. The
most obvious is the causal if-then:
If I were to use my car to go to work
then it would be more expensive.
This first point is the usual TFTT, although in English
some sort of causal connection is usually assumed, and
this seems to be the point that people are discussing.
The second, however, is the speaker's belief that the
first part, the antecedent, is not true, and unlikely
ever to be true.
People are discussing at length the different attempts
at expresing the causal (or whatever) connection, but
perhaps the original question was really about this
extra item of information carried in the subjunctive.
Otherwise it's not actually a subjective.
So the English subjunctive form is a succinct way of
saying:
Granted, A is not true and is
unlikely ever to be true,
but if it *were* true, <--- "were" = subjunctive
then B would be forced
to follow.
cdw
And Rosta
> la and cusku di'e
>
> > For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w, in
> >w if I have a million dollars then I am rich.
> >
> > = For all possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one),
> >w, in w either I am rich or I don't have a million
> >dollars.
>
> But how do I determine which worlds are relevantly similar?
I have nothing to add to pc's answer to this.
> Obviously I have to admit some worlds where I have a million
> dollars, but I also have to exclude all worlds where most
> people have a million dollars. In other words, I have to
> admit only those worlds where my having a million dollars
> means I am rich. But then there is no content in the
> expression, all the content is in the selection of relevant
> worlds. Isn't it?
You are right, though your point is exaggerated by the example, which
means "Anyone with a million dollars is rich" [in nonlogical form]. Change
it to "If I have/had a million dollars then I would/might buy a yacht"
and your argument is less glaringly obvious, though still valid. Without
thinking about it deeply, I think that it is correct that the content
should be in the selection of relevant worlds.
> >"If I had a million dollars then I might be able to retire" (as opposed to
> >"then I *would* be able to retire"):
> >
> > For *some* possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one), w,
> >in w if I have a million dollars then I am able to retire.
> >
> > = For some possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one),
> >w, in w either I am able to retire or I don't have a million dollars.
>
> But this one fails even worse. Since I don't have a million
> dollars, "If I had a million dollars then I might buy Microsoft
> from Bill" is true, according to your expansion, because
> indeed in some worlds relevantly similar to this one
> (in all of those in which I don't have a million dollars
> in fact, including this one) "If I have a million dollars
> then I am able to buy Microsoft" is true.
>
> You have to restrict it to worlds where I do have a million
> dollars. Then you are just saying: "In some worlds where
> I have a million dollars, I am able retire."
You are again quite right. In fact, in the formula I started off with in
my head I had restricted quantification, but because, unlike pc, I have
not (yet?) been sold on restricted quantification, I rejigged it to
get rid of the r.q. & bollocksed it up.
If I insisted on avoiding r.q., would the following work?
For some possible worlds (that are relevantly similar to this one),
w, in w I am able to retire and I have a million dollars.
In other words, "if p then would q" is "Aw: in w, q or not p", and
"if p then might q" is "Ew, in w p and q". Admittedly, restricted
quantification looks nicer, in that it preserves formal parallelism:
"Aw such that p: in w, q"; "Ew such that p: in w, q". This, as I mentioned
in another message of today, is the one attraction of r.q. that I know of:
All swans are white. Some swans are white.
Ax: x is not white or x is a swan. Ex: x is white and x is a swan.
Ax, x a swan: x is white. Ex, x a swan: x is white.
> >Changing topic: English has indicative/subjunctive contrasts such as:
> >
> > I insist that he go. [= I order it to be the case that he goes]
> > I insist that he goes. [= I vigorously assert it to be true that he
> >goes]
> >
> >In Lojban both subordinate clauses would be translated with (I guess)
> >{le du'u}, but you'd have to use different main brivla. The semantics
> >of the brivla specifies whether or not "broda X" is true only if X is
> >true.
>
> If "I insist that he go" is something like "mi minde fi le du'u
> ko'a klama" then the truth value of "ko'a klama" doesn't really
> enter into it, does it?
It enters into it in the sense that "minde" (or the default for all brivla)
specifies that it is not the case that "minde fi da" is true only if da is
true.
--And.
C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
Looking for the lowest refinance rate for your mortgage?
GetSmart.com can help. We'll help you find the loan you
need - quick, easy, and FREE click
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/GetSmartRefinance ">Click Here</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
> > implications that the English does, and the question
> > is - how can the following be translated accurately:
> >
> > If I were to be given a million pounds
> > then I'd be rich.
> >
> > Whatever the lojban version is, it must carry the same
> > implication concerning the implausibility of the first
> > part of the statement.
> This is where I disagree, though a lot depends on your
> interpretation of the word "translation" ... I would
> hold that a translation should include the important
> information contained in the original (of course) but
> does not need to include all the information.
and then:
> ... I would rely on context for the tense and direction
> information, and would only include them if there was some
> danger of misinterpretation
So, how do you know that the information that I don't have a
million pounds is not important? The original question was
how one should translate it, not whether, in your opinion,
it's important.
I am a terse writer. Unless I have evidence that it will be
necessary for a given audience to write the same thing in six
different ways, I generally rely on the precise expression of
single ideas, and for a translator to decide that information
is irrelevant is dangerous.
I agree entirely that translation is hard. In fact, the more
I have studied language I have come to the conclusion that it
simply cannot work at all !! language itself is a miracle,
and translation a mysterious art. I accept that you know more
about translation than I do or ever will, and it's now clear
that if ever I expect some of my work to be important enough
to translate, I had better not use language the way I usually
do, since I can't expect a translator to express everything
important *in_my_opinion* (as the author) in the original.
> Similarly, with the million dollars example, I do not think
> that it is normally necessary to inform the listener that
> I do not, and probably will never, have a million dollars.
By if I express it with the subjunctive, then I *do* think
it's important.
> As for the semantics of IF, I do not see any major problems.
(snip)
> Granted, it includes the possibility that I may be rich if
> I do not possess a million dollars, but this is true in any
> case, since I am also rich if I possess two million dollars,
> 999,999 dollars, or no money at all but a large quantity of
> gold.
I agree. However, there are questions that remain, and I
believe that most of this discussion arises because people
have been giving examples and assumed that you would see
the question they are ntending to ask.
So, how would you translate the following:
" If I were to have a million pounds
then I'd be rich. "
given that I, as the author, have used the subjunctive, an
otherwise obsolete form, to carry the additional information
that I believe the antecedent to be unlikely ever to be true.
And how would you translate the following:
" If I were to finish this project today
then I would use it tomorrow. "
given that I, as the author, want to include the implication
that the dependent clause has no real meaning in the absence
of the truth of the antecedent. Not only is there a causal
connection, but consideration of the second part is completely
pointless without the first.
Robin Turner
la sidirait. cusku di'e
> So, how do you know that the information that I don't have a
> million pounds is not important? The original question was
> how one should translate it, not whether, in your opinion,
> it's important.
Obviously unless something is my own words, I don't know for certain what
is or is not important (especially here, where I have no context to go
on). The point I was trying to make is that we should
be wary of assuming that just because in language A it is
compulsory to mark feature X, we should mark it in language Y.
> I am a terse writer. Unless I have evidence that it will be
> necessary for a given audience to write the same thing in six
> different ways, I generally rely on the precise expression of
> single ideas, and for a translator to decide that information
> is irrelevant is dangerous.
True, but it is also bad to assume that something is important just
because it's embedded in the grammar. For example, Turkish has a suffix to
indicate received information (sometimes called the "rumour tense" or the
"gossip tense") so if you're speaking Turkish, you have to make a
grammatical choice between
geldi
he/she/it came
and
gelmis~
I hear that he/she/it came
However, you would not want to start every -mis~ sentence with "I hear
that" or "Apparently".
> I agree entirely that translation is hard. In fact, the more
> I have studied language I have come to the conclusion that it
> simply cannot work at all !!
Quine seemed to come to the same conclusion ;-)
> language itself is a miracle,
> and translation a mysterious art. I accept that you know more
> about translation than I do or ever will,
That I seriously doubt!
> and it's now clear
> that if ever I expect some of my work to be important enough
> to translate, I had better not use language the way I usually
> do, since I can't expect a translator to express everything
> important *in_my_opinion* (as the author) in the original.
Well, that's one reason why we have Lojban - it's much easier to specify
what is and isn't important. Questions of fluency aside, it should be
much easier to translate from Lojban into a natlang than vice versa.
>
> > Similarly, with the million dollars example, I do not think
> > that it is normally necessary to inform the listener that
> > I do not, and probably will never, have a million dollars.
>
> By if I express it with the subjunctive, then I *do* think
> it's important.
zo'o semantics of "if" again?
If you think it's important' you use the subjunctive, but that doesn't
imply that if you use the subjunctive, you think it's important. English
also demands that I choose gender when using a personal pronoun, whether
or not the gender of the person referred to is important or even known.
> > > As for the semantics of IF, I do not see any major problems.
> (snip)
> > Granted, it includes the possibility that I may be rich if
> > I do not possess a million dollars, but this is true in any
> > case, since I am also rich if I possess two million dollars,
> > 999,999 dollars, or no money at all but a large quantity of
> > gold.
>
> I agree. However, there are questions that remain, and I
> believe that most of this discussion arises because people
> have been giving examples and assumed that you would see
> the question they are ntending to ask.
My fault - I was answering a different question altogether (something I
keep telling my students not to do!).
> So, how would you translate the following:
>
> " If I were to have a million pounds
> then I'd be rich. "
>
> given that I, as the author, have used the subjunctive, an
> otherwise obsolete form, to carry the additional information
> that I believe the antecedent to be unlikely ever to be true.
>
I think other people have answered this fairly completely.
>
> And how would you translate the following:
>
> " If I were to finish this project today
> then I would use it tomorrow. "
>
> given that I, as the author, want to include the implication
> that the dependent clause has no real meaning in the absence
> of the truth of the antecedent. Not only is there a causal
> connection, but consideration of the second part is completely
> pointless without the first.
>
Isn't this the same as the "I'd buy a yacht" examples discussed earlier?
>
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the Member Center link from the menu bar on the left.
C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
cdw> So, how do you know that the information that
cdw> I don't have a million pounds is not important?
cdw> The ... question was how one should translate
cdw> it, not whether ... it's important.
r_t> The point I was trying to make is that we should be
r_t> wary of assuming that just because in language A it
r_t> is compulsory to mark feature X, we should mark it
r_t> in language Y.
Agreed, and perhaps the counter-point is that the subjunctive
is not only not compulsory, but in some quarters is actively
deprecated (e.g. Fowler the great's "Modern English Usage")
cdw> I generally rely on the precise expression of single
cdw> ideas, and for a translator to decide that information
cdw> is irrelevant is dangerous.
r_t> True, but it is also bad to assume that something is
r_t> important just because it's embedded in the grammar.
Agreed. And while the subjunctive isn't, I completely agree with
you that other things are, and shouldn't by default be translated.
cdw> ... the more I have studied language I have come to the
cdw> conclusion that it simply cannot work at all !!
r_t> Quine seemed to come to the same conclusion ;-)
<grin>
cdw> I accept that you know more about translation than
cdw> I do or ever will,
r_t> That I seriously doubt!
Don't. I have no languages other than English, University
mathematics, a smattering of lojban, and about 12 computer
languages. I don't translate at all, ever, except for my
poor and faltering efforts in lojban.
cdw> if ever I expect some of my work to be important enough
cdw> to translate, I had better not use language the way I
cdw> usually do, since I can't expect a translator to express
cdw> everything important *in_my_opinion* (as the author) in
cdw> the original.
r_t> ... that's one reason why we have Lojban - it's much
r_t> easier to specify what is and isn't important. Questions
r_t> of fluency aside, it should be much easier to translate
r_t> from Lojban into a natlang than vice versa.
Again, agreed.
r_t> Similarly, with the million dollars example, I do not think
r_t> that it is normally necessary to inform the listener that
r_t> I do not, and probably will never, have a million dollars.
cdw> But if I express it with the subjunctive, then I *do* think
cdw> it's important.
r_t> zo'o semantics of "if" again?
<grin>
r_t> If you think it's important' you use the subjunctive,
r_t> but that doesn't imply that if you use the subjunctive,
r_t> you think it's important. English also demands that I
r_t> choose gender when using a personal pronoun, whether or
r_t> not the gender of the person referred to is important or
r_t> even known.
Of course. Let me say it differently. The subjunctive is
actively deprecated, and if I use it, it will always and only be
because it is carrying information. I didn't use it in that last
sentence, from which you may deduce that I do expect to use it.
Re: the semantics of IF
cdw> So, how would you translate the following:
cdw> " If I were to have a million pounds
cdw> then I'd be rich. "
cdw> given that I, as the author, have used the subjunctive,
cdw> an otherwise obsolete form, to carry the additional
cdw> information that I believe the antecedent to be unlikely
cdw> ever to be true.
r_t> I think other people have answered this fairly completely.
I must have missed that, and will have to re-read the messages.
It seemed to me that most have gone off on a different tangent,
so I may have over-looked it.
--
\\// ze'uku ko jmive gi'e snada
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9 percent
Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative4 ">Click Here</a>
Robin Turner
geldi
he/she/it came
and
> I agree entirely that translation is hard. In fact, the more
> I have studied language I have come to the conclusion that it
> simply cannot work at all !!
Quine seemed to come to the same conclusion ;-)
> language itself is a miracle,
> and translation a mysterious art. I accept that you know more
> about translation than I do or ever will,
That I seriously doubt!
> and it's now clear
> that if ever I expect some of my work to be important enough
> to translate, I had better not use language the way I usually
> do, since I can't expect a translator to express everything
> important *in_my_opinion* (as the author) in the original.
Well, that's one reason why we have Lojban - it's much easier to specify
what is and isn't important. Questions of fluency aside, it should be
much easier to translate from Lojban into a natlang than vice versa.
>
> > Similarly, with the million dollars example, I do not think
> > that it is normally necessary to inform the listener that
> > I do not, and probably will never, have a million dollars.
>
> By if I express it with the subjunctive, then I *do* think
> it's important.
zo'o semantics of "if" again?
If you think it's important' you use the subjunctive, but that doesn't
imply that if you use the subjunctive, you think it's important. English
also demands that I choose gender when using a personal pronoun, whether
or not the gender of the person referred to is important or even known.
> > > As for the semantics of IF, I do not see any major problems.
> (snip)
> > Granted, it includes the possibility that I may be rich if
> > I do not possess a million dollars, but this is true in any
> > case, since I am also rich if I possess two million dollars,
> > 999,999 dollars, or no money at all but a large quantity of
> > gold.
>
> I agree. However, there are questions that remain, and I
> believe that most of this discussion arises because people
> have been giving examples and assumed that you would see
> the question they are ntending to ask.
My fault - I was answering a different question altogether (something I
keep telling my students not to do!).
> So, how would you translate the following:
>
> " If I were to have a million pounds
> then I'd be rich. "
>
> given that I, as the author, have used the subjunctive, an
> otherwise obsolete form, to carry the additional information
> that I believe the antecedent to be unlikely ever to be true.
>
I think other people have answered this fairly completely.
>
C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
C.D.W...@solipsys.compulink.co.uk
> > The logical if/then simply does not carry the same
> > implications that the English does, and the question
> > is - how can the following be translated accurately:
> >
> > If I were to be given a million pounds
> > then I'd be rich.
> >
> > Whatever the lojban version is, it must carry the same
> > implication concerning the implausibility of the first
> > part of the statement.
> This is where I disagree, though a lot depends on your
> interpretation of the word "translation" ... I would
> hold that a translation should include the important
> information contained in the original (of course) but
> does not need to include all the information.
and then:
> ... I would rely on context for the tense and direction
> information, and would only include them if there was some
> danger of misinterpretation
So, how do you know that the information that I don't have a
million pounds is not important? The original question was
how one should translate it, not whether, in your opinion,
it's important.
I am a terse writer. Unless I have evidence that it will be
necessary for a given audience to write the same thing in six
different ways, I generally rely on the precise expression of
single ideas, and for a translator to decide that information
is irrelevant is dangerous.
I agree entirely that translation is hard. In fact, the more
I have studied language I have come to the conclusion that it
simply cannot work at all !! language itself is a miracle,
and translation a mysterious art. I accept that you know more
about translation than I do or ever will, and it's now clear
that if ever I expect some of my work to be important enough
to translate, I had better not use language the way I usually
do, since I can't expect a translator to express everything
important *in_my_opinion* (as the author) in the original.
> Similarly, with the million dollars example, I do not think
> that it is normally necessary to inform the listener that
> I do not, and probably will never, have a million dollars.
By if I express it with the subjunctive, then I *do* think
it's important.
> As for the semantics of IF, I do not see any major problems.
(snip)
> Granted, it includes the possibility that I may be rich if
> I do not possess a million dollars, but this is true in any
> case, since I am also rich if I possess two million dollars,
> 999,999 dollars, or no money at all but a large quantity of
> gold.
I agree. However, there are questions that remain, and I
believe that most of this discussion arises because people
have been giving examples and assumed that you would see
the question they are ntending to ask.
So, how would you translate the following:
" If I were to have a million pounds
then I'd be rich. "
given that I, as the author, have used the subjunctive, an
otherwise obsolete form, to carry the additional information
that I believe the antecedent to be unlikely ever to be true.
And how would you translate the following:
" If I were to finish this project today
then I would use it tomorrow. "
given that I, as the author, want to include the implication
that the dependent clause has no real meaning in the absence
of the truth of the antecedent. Not only is there a causal
connection, but consideration of the second part is completely
pointless without the first.
cdw
--
\\// ze'uku ko jmive gi'e snada
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
FREE ADVICE FROM REAL PEOPLE! Xpertsite has thousands of experts who
are willing to answer your questions for FREE. Go to Xpertsite today
and put your mind to rest.
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/XpersiteCPC ">Click Here</a>