[lojban] Re: mu'ei
Jorge Llamb�as
la nitcion cusku di'e
> the problem with possible worlds is that, while they are there to give
> hypothetical scenarios a cardinality (and thereby a denotation), there
> are only three sensible numbers for them: no; ro; and me'i.
There is also {su'o} to go with that group:
romu'ei: necessary
nomu'ei: impossible
su'omu'ei: possible
me'imu'ei: not necessary
But as John pointed out, the so'V series is also usable with mu'ei,
giving something like:
so'amu'ei: almost necessary
so'emu'ei: most probable
so'imu'ei: very likely
so'omu'ei: somewhat likely
so'umu'ei: barely possible
And also:
du'emu'ei: too likely
mo'amu'ei: not likely enough
raumu'ei: likely enough
And of course:
xomu'ei: how likely?
> If and when the topic comes up on bpfk, I'd much
> rather an alternative like expanding the definition of ka'e as sumti
> tcita to encompass me'imu'ei, and na'eka'e na for romu'ei. Or something.
{ka'e} is closest to {su'omu'ei}, something that is possible
is something that happens in at least one possible world.
{na'eka'e} is closest to {nomu'ei}, something that happens in no possible
world is something impossible.
{me'imu'ei} is something that does not happen in every possible
world, thus it does not necessarily happen. It may even be something
impossible.
There is no CAhA corresponding to {romu'ei}, though one was proposed
as an experimental cmavo. ({ba'ai}? I can't check on the wiki right
now.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Nick Nicholas
the problem with possible worlds is that, while they are there to give
hypothetical scenarios a cardinality (and thereby a denotation), there
are only three sensible numbers for them: no; ro; and me'i. me'i is
always infinite, never a finite number, because given that you're
counting entire worlds, you can have infinitely many, infinitesimally
different worlds, all corresponding to your scenario.
*If I had a million bucks (and Sun Yat-Sen was running China), I'd give
half to charity.
*If I had a million bucks (and Fred Flintstone was running China), I'd
give half to charity.
*If I had a million bucks (and Sun Yat-Sen was running Fred
Flintstone), I'd give half to charity.
*If I had a million bucks (and Sun Yat-Sen was eating Fred Flintstone),
I'd give half to charity.
Sun and Fred have nothing to do with my counterfactual scenario. But
they make for distinct possible worlds --- and as long as I get my
million shmackers, such a world still fulfils my hypothetical.
This is why possible worlds, though conceptually useful, aren't
terribly practical, and it's a good think normal linguistic logic keeps
them "under the hood". If and when the topic comes up on bpfk, I'd much
rather an alternative like expanding the definition of ka'e as sumti
tcita to encompass me'imu'ei, and na'eka'e na for romu'ei. Or something.
###
Momenton senpretende paseman mi retenis kaj # Dr NICK NICHOLAS.
kultis kvazaux # French & Italian,
senhorlogxan elizeon # Univ. of Melbourne
(Dume: # ni...@unimelb.edu.au
[Victor Sadler, _Memkritiko_ 90] # http://www.opoudjis.net