# RE: Re: Subjunctives

5 views

### And Rosta

Jan 29, 2000, 2:03:44 PM1/29/00
to
> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjlla...@hotmail.com>
>
> la pycyn cusku di'e
>
> >Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and
> >everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification. As
> >Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w,
> >then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world
> >in
> >which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in
> >this world. On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a
> >million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a
> >muillion -- and says that there are some. Clearly the latter is much
> >closer
> >to what is wanted, though even it may not be quite right (Lojban has the
> >means to do this, but does not use it for this purpose).
>
> And it is interesting that this solution: "in every possible
> world in which I have a million, w, I am rich in w" does not
> use the logical IF, and is remarkably similar to the {va'o}
> solution:
>
> va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu
> Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
> In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.

First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence
is basically saying that you are rich and you have a million, where the
having a million is the conditions in which you are rich.

Second, if you do have the {da'i}, you still can't get the "every world"
versus "some world" distinction, which was the point I intended in my

--And.

### And Rosta

Jan 29, 2000, 2:03:50 PM1/29/00
to
> From: Py...@aol.com
>
[....]
> The perfective seems to involve relevance conditions, which are one of the
> hairiest problems in possible world games (of which tense is one in the logic
> business). For the contrary to fact cases being discussed, the best course
> is to say every world exactly like this one except for the condition named in
> the protasis (if....) and whatever is required by that change. So, clearly,
> changing the world by having me possess a million just requires that I also
> be shifted into the class of rich folk (I think -- a million just ain't what
> it was anymore) and maybe nothing or very little else. Or does it: can I
> have a million and still be a retired professor from a really cheap
> university? Don't have to have had some source for that million and if so
> what? So maybe the worlds can vary on the ways I got the million. But if
> they vary too much, I come to doubt that this is still me they are talking
> about. And, if I start to vary too much, does this not affect others around
> me (wives and childen, etc., at least and students and colleagues and....).
> Where does it end? Cut it off too soon and the world so little changed is
> greatly changed (a retired professor gets a mill out of the blue); let it run
> too far and it no longer seems to apply to me (or to be about this sort of
> world at all).
> Probably all that the original really means is that anyone with a million is
> rich, perhaps with the added wish that I were one such. (And, of course, if
> I were as rich as Rothschild, I'd be richer than Rothschild.)

> Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and
> everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification.

Can you tell my why it's your favourite change (and others' least favourite,
too)? I've been planning to read up on arguments pro r.q., and your views
would be helpful. The only argument I'm aware of so far is that r.q. better
preserves the correspondence between logical and linguistic form.

> As
> Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w,
> then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world in
> which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in
> this world. On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a
> million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a
> muillion -- and says that there are some.

I didn't take Jorge to have said quite that. But anyway, is it really the
case that "every possible world in which I have a million" entails that
there is such a world?

> Clearly the latter is much closer to what is wanted, though even it may not
> be quite right (Lojban has the means to do this, but does not use it for
> this purpose).

I presume the means you have in mind is the "da poi ke'a" construction?

--And.

Jan 29, 2000, 5:10:47 PM1/29/00
to
la xorxes cusku di'e

> la and cusku di'e

>
> > > va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu
> > > Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
> > > In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.
> >
> >First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence is
> >basically saying that you are rich and you have a
> >million, where the having a million is the conditions in which you are
> >rich.
>

> Yes, I accept that. I admit that I often just use {va'o}
> because I take it as if {da'i} was a part of it. I don't
> think {va'o} without {da'i} is all that useful.
>

I disagree. It seems to me that the x1 of vanbi is the geneal way to
express places like the x3 of binxo. In other words, "loi bisli cu
binxo loi jaclitki le nu glare" doesn't necessarily mean that any ice
actually becomes liquid water, if it never gets hot enough. Likewise
if "vanbi" is the main bridi. Even when you use the tag "va'o" as in
the above sentence, the main bridi is only being claimed under the
condition of the tagged sumti, as if an "under conditions" place was

As another possible translation, how about

le nu mi ponse su'opaki'oki'o rupnu cu nibli le nu mi ricfu

ara...@newmail.net
-------------------
"Oom, Shmoom!"
--David Ben-Gurion

### And Rosta

Jan 29, 2000, 2:03:44 PM1/29/00
to loj...@onelist.com
From: "And Rosta" <a.r...@pmail.net>

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjlla...@hotmail.com>
>
> la pycyn cusku di'e
>

> >Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and

> >everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification. As

> >Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w,
> >then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world
> >in
> >which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in
> >this world. On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a
> >million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a

> >muillion -- and says that there are some. Clearly the latter is much

> >closer
> >to what is wanted, though even it may not be quite right (Lojban has the
> >means to do this, but does not use it for this purpose).
>

> And it is interesting that this solution: "in every possible
> world in which I have a million, w, I am rich in w" does not
> use the logical IF, and is remarkably similar to the {va'o}
> solution:
>

> va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu
> Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
> In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.

First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence
is basically saying that you are rich and you have a million, where the
having a million is the conditions in which you are rich.

Second, if you do have the {da'i}, you still can't get the "every world"

versus "some world" distinction, which was the point I intended in my

--And.

GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent
Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com

### Jorge Llambias

Jan 29, 2000, 3:57:09 PM1/29/00
to loj...@onelist.com
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjlla...@hotmail.com>

la and cusku di'e

> > va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu
> > Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
> > In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.
>
>First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence is
>basically saying that you are rich and you have a
>million, where the having a million is the conditions in which you are
>rich.

Yes, I accept that. I admit that I often just use {va'o}

because I take it as if {da'i} was a part of it. I don't
think {va'o} without {da'i} is all that useful.

>Second, if you do have the {da'i}, you still can't get the "every world"

>versus "some world" distinction, which was the point I intended in my

Yes I can! :)

and then I forgot to write about it. It would be something
like this:

va'oda'i lo nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ka'e seljibysti
Under some conditions where I have a mill., I can retire.
In some world where I have a mill., I can retire.

So, {va'o le nu} or {va'o ro lo nu} for "would be" and
{va'o lo nu} = {va'o su'o lo nu} for "might be".

co'o mi'e xorxes

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Looking for the lowest refinance rate for your mortgage?
need - quick, easy, and FREE click

### Jorge Llambias

Jan 30, 2000, 4:36:49 PM1/30/00
to

>I disagree. It seems to me that the x1 of vanbi is the geneal way to
>express places like the x3 of binxo. In other words, "loi bisli cu
>binxo loi jaclitki le nu glare" doesn't necessarily mean that any ice
>actually becomes liquid water, if it never gets hot enough. Likewise
>if "vanbi" is the main bridi. Even when you use the tag "va'o" as in
>the above sentence, the main bridi is only being claimed under the
>condition of the tagged sumti, as if an "under conditions" place was

I'm not sure why you say you disagree. I agree with what
you say, which means that va'o by itself, without da'i,

>As another possible translation, how about
>
> le nu mi ponse su'opaki'oki'o rupnu cu nibli le nu mi ricfu

I usually think of nibli for things like:
(All men are mortal, Socrates is a man) nibli
(Socrates is mortal).

But I suppose you can use it more generally.

Jan 29, 2000, 5:10:47 PM1/29/00
to loj...@onelist.com

la xorxes cusku di'e

> la and cusku di'e

>
> > > va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu
> > > Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
> > > In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.
> >
> >First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence is
> >basically saying that you are rich and you have a
> >million, where the having a million is the conditions in which you are
> >rich.
>
> Yes, I accept that. I admit that I often just use {va'o}
> because I take it as if {da'i} was a part of it. I don't
> think {va'o} without {da'i} is all that useful.
>

I disagree. It seems to me that the x1 of vanbi is the geneal way to

express places like the x3 of binxo. In other words, "loi bisli cu
binxo loi jaclitki le nu glare" doesn't necessarily mean that any ice
actually becomes liquid water, if it never gets hot enough. Likewise
if "vanbi" is the main bridi. Even when you use the tag "va'o" as in
the above sentence, the main bridi is only being claimed under the
condition of the tagged sumti, as if an "under conditions" place was

As another possible translation, how about

le nu mi ponse su'opaki'oki'o rupnu cu nibli le nu mi ricfu

ara...@newmail.net
-------------------
"Oom, Shmoom!"
--David Ben-Gurion

Jan 29, 2000, 4:01:17 PM1/29/00
to loj...@onelist.com

Speaking of all this talk about how to say "if", how about the word
"fau", which I think was meant to translate "if". IMO, since "fasnu"
only has one place, I don't think it's clear how the main bridi relates
to the event that "fau" tags.

### And Rosta

Jan 29, 2000, 2:03:50 PM1/29/00
to loj...@onelist.com
From: "And Rosta" <a.r...@pmail.net>

> From: Py...@aol.com

>
[....]
> The perfective seems to involve relevance conditions, which are one of the
> hairiest problems in possible world games (of which tense is one in the logic
> business). For the contrary to fact cases being discussed, the best course
> is to say every world exactly like this one except for the condition named in
> the protasis (if....) and whatever is required by that change. So, clearly,
> changing the world by having me possess a million just requires that I also
> be shifted into the class of rich folk (I think -- a million just ain't what
> it was anymore) and maybe nothing or very little else. Or does it: can I
> have a million and still be a retired professor from a really cheap
> university? Don't have to have had some source for that million and if so
> what? So maybe the worlds can vary on the ways I got the million. But if
> they vary too much, I come to doubt that this is still me they are talking
> about. And, if I start to vary too much, does this not affect others around
> me (wives and childen, etc., at least and students and colleagues and....).
> Where does it end? Cut it off too soon and the world so little changed is
> greatly changed (a retired professor gets a mill out of the blue); let it run
> too far and it no longer seems to apply to me (or to be about this sort of
> world at all).
> Probably all that the original really means is that anyone with a million is
> rich, perhaps with the added wish that I were one such. (And, of course, if
> I were as rich as Rothschild, I'd be richer than Rothschild.)

> Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and
> everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification.

Can you tell my why it's your favourite change (and others' least favourite,

too)? I've been planning to read up on arguments pro r.q., and your views
would be helpful. The only argument I'm aware of so far is that r.q. better
preserves the correspondence between logical and linguistic form.

> As

> Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w,
> then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world in
> which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in
> this world. On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a
> million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a
> muillion -- and says that there are some.

I didn't take Jorge to have said quite that. But anyway, is it really the

case that "every possible world in which I have a million" entails that
there is such a world?

> Clearly the latter is much closer to what is wanted, though even it may not

> be quite right (Lojban has the means to do this, but does not use it for
> this purpose).

I presume the means you have in mind is the "da poi ke'a" construction?

--And.

### Jorge Llambias

Jan 26, 2000, 3:38:25 PM1/26/00
to

la pycyn cusku di'e

>I can't check with the Book right now, but my memory of how the tense and
>aspects were intended to work is as follows.
>1) tense and aspect are separated (and from mood and the like as well, all
>of
>which are jumbled together in English and, historically at least, in most
>familiar languages)

Yes, tense: ca, pu, ba; aspect: ca'o, ba'o, pu'o, etc.

>2) tense is based on axis and vector reference, though not restricted to
>the
>four axes implicit in most natural systems (though never fully realized in
>any).

What is the fourth axis of natural systems, besides past,
present and future?

>3) The same cmavo are used for retro vector and past axis, for simultaneous
>vector and present axis, and for pro vector and future axis. The
>differences
>are positional and/or determined by context. Thus, pu might be either past
>vector to the current axis or establishing a new axis prior to the current
>one.

I think this is not the way pu is presented in the Book.
If I understand what you are saying (maybe I don't, because
I am not at all familiar with that terminology) then the
Book says that pu always establishes a new axis prior
to the current one. (Except in its function after ZEhAs,
but I don't think that's what you're talking about.)

>Where the difference is too important to be left to context to decide,
>capu would indicate the vector (brief glance back without chaning the focus
>of the narrative) and puca the new axis (or maybe it is the other way
>'round
>-- I ermember this got argued and I forget which one, this seems most
>natural
>to me at the moment).

This is definitely not in the Book. According to the Book, puca,
capu and pu by itself are all the same, and they all shift the
axis to the past.

>4) Only axes are points, so that punctile clauses, like ca..., must apply
>to
>axes, making bapu ca... unambiguous "event before the future event
>indicated
>by ca..."
>Of course, with a clearly future event, maybe even capu would work.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that in bapu
ba establishes the axis and pu is a vector, and then the
{ca le cerni} clause must indicate the axis. That does not
agree with the Book. According to the Book's rules,
{ca le cerni} could not indicate a point at the middle
of the "imaginary journey" represented by bapu.

>5) Aspects carry temporal implications but are not completely temporal.
>Thus, the perfective of an event does entail that the event occurred in the
>past (though even this can be doubted, since some maintain that the
>inchoative does not entail that the event takes place in the future) but
>the
>converse does not quite follow, for not all past events still throw their
>aspectual shadows into the present (effects from causes, continued
>existence
>of participants, ... -- the list varies in some unclear ways) as the
>perfective seems to indicate.

Right. Perfective and inchoative are not fully symmetrical,
so I don't see a problem with one entailing that the event
occurred and the other not entailing that it will occur.

>6) So, in Lojban, past axis, retro vector and perfective aspect are all
>slightly different and in different ways. But in English they tend to
>fall
>together, certainly away from present tense, and thus sorting out which one
>is meant by a given Englsh sentence is not subject to clear rules, except
>that one must think what one means to say, both in the given sentence and
>in
>those around it.

I agree there are no strict rules. All I can say is that
etc) would be useful.

[...]

>Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and

>everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification. As

>Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w,
>then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world
>in
>which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in
>this world. On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a
>million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a

>muillion -- and says that there are some. Clearly the latter is much

>closer
>to what is wanted, though even it may not be quite right (Lojban has the
>means to do this, but does not use it for this purpose).

And it is interesting that this solution: "in every possible

world in which I have a million, w, I am rich in w" does not
use the logical IF, and is remarkably similar to the {va'o}
solution:

va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu

Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.

co'o mi'e xorxes

### Jorge Llambias

Jan 29, 2000, 3:57:09 PM1/29/00
to

la and cusku di'e

> > va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu

> > Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
> > In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.
>

>First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence is
>basically saying that you are rich and you have a
>million, where the having a million is the conditions in which you are
>rich.

Yes, I accept that. I admit that I often just use {va'o}
because I take it as if {da'i} was a part of it. I don't
think {va'o} without {da'i} is all that useful.

>Second, if you do have the {da'i}, you still can't get the "every world"

>versus "some world" distinction, which was the point I intended in my

Yes I can! :)

and then I forgot to write about it. It would be something
like this:

va'oda'i lo nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ka'e seljibysti
Under some conditions where I have a mill., I can retire.
In some world where I have a mill., I can retire.

So, {va'o le nu} or {va'o ro lo nu} for "would be" and
{va'o lo nu} = {va'o su'o lo nu} for "might be".

co'o mi'e xorxes

### Jorge Llambias

Jan 26, 2000, 3:38:25 PM1/26/00
to loj...@onelist.com
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjlla...@hotmail.com>

va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu

Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.

co'o mi'e xorxes

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

GREAT PET STUFF FOR ONLY \$1.00! REALLY!
Visit's Petopia's \$1.00 Dreams and pick from over 20 pet toys & treats
with values up to \$20�for only \$1.00! While supplies last!

Jan 29, 2000, 4:01:17 PM1/29/00
to

### Jorge Llambias

Jan 30, 2000, 4:36:49 PM1/30/00
to loj...@onelist.com
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjlla...@hotmail.com>

>I disagree. It seems to me that the x1 of vanbi is the geneal way to
>express places like the x3 of binxo. In other words, "loi bisli cu
>binxo loi jaclitki le nu glare" doesn't necessarily mean that any ice
>actually becomes liquid water, if it never gets hot enough. Likewise
>if "vanbi" is the main bridi. Even when you use the tag "va'o" as in
>the above sentence, the main bridi is only being claimed under the
>condition of the tagged sumti, as if an "under conditions" place was

I'm not sure why you say you disagree. I agree with what

you say, which means that va'o by itself, without da'i,

>As another possible translation, how about

>
> le nu mi ponse su'opaki'oki'o rupnu cu nibli le nu mi ricfu

I usually think of nibli for things like:

(All men are mortal, Socrates is a man) nibli
(Socrates is mortal).

But I suppose you can use it more generally.

co'o mi'e xorxes

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Looking for the lowest refinance rate for your mortgage?

need - quick, easy, and FREE click

Feb 5, 2000, 2:34:22 PM2/5/00
to loj...@onelist.com

la xorxes cusku di'e

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjlla...@hotmail.com>

>
>
> >I disagree. It seems to me that the x1 of vanbi is the geneal way to
> >express places like the x3 of binxo. In other words, "loi bisli cu
> >binxo loi jaclitki le nu glare" doesn't necessarily mean that any ice
> >actually becomes liquid water, if it never gets hot enough. Likewise
> >if "vanbi" is the main bridi. Even when you use the tag "va'o" as in
> >the above sentence, the main bridi is only being claimed under the
> >condition of the tagged sumti, as if an "under conditions" place was
> >added to the main bridi.
>
> I'm not sure why you say you disagree. I agree with what
> you say, which means that va'o by itself, without da'i,
>

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I had thought that you had just
said that you accepted that "va'o" without "da'i" claims the main
bridi with the tagged sumti as its environment, whereas I was
saying that the main bridi does not necessarily occur if what is
tagged by "va'o" doesn't occur.

ara...@newmail.net
-------------------
"Oom, Shmoom!"
--David Ben-Gurion