[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 16/09/2012 04:07:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:16 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Jorge Llamb�as, On 16/09/2012 00:42:On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:44 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Jorge Llamb�as, On 15/09/2012 20:38:What I'm saying is that if you are going to grammatically distinguish between same-world states of affairs and not-necessarily-same-world states of affairs. you might as well distinguish between same-world things and not-necessarily-same-world things. Why make the distinction for states of affairs only?Anyway, the answer to your question is that the distinction between same-world things and not-necessarily-same-world things can be expressed using the distinction same-world situations and not-necessarily-same-world situations, there is a ready mechanism for expressing the distinction between same-world situations and not-necessarily-same-world situations, and there is no ready mechanism for expressing the distinction between same-world things and not-necessarily-same-world things.Well, it seems it would be just as easy to define hV in the way dV is defined, instead of the way fV is defined.
"All the trees fell and I saw it" with fV-like hV is "la ha ro [tree]o [fall]o vska'aka". I don't see how to do that With dV-like hV.
But in any case at this point your hV and Mike's hV seem to have diverged somewhat.
I haven't been able to keep up with you and Mike's discussion on this, but it had been my impression that Mike didn't base his hV on mine but rather just coincidentally picked the same consonant. Either that or he picked up on me having used hV, but then reapplied it to some other function in some alternative scheme.
Also, the same-world situations and not-necessarily-same-world situations is perhaps especially important regarding salient semantic contrasts such as de re vs de dicto.But isn't that more of an extensional/intensional contrast, not so much a real/imaginary contrast?
Yes. the hV/fV contrast is an extensional/intensional contrast, not a real/imaginary contrast. Necessarily-same-world = extensional; Not-necessarily-same-world = intensional.
Just as the tiger that she sees in the clouds exists only in her imagination. The difference is that in the case of "talk to" we can't so easily use the trick of changing the addressee into an imaginary state of affairs.Which example do you mean? I did say (unclearly) that the x2 of "talk to" could be a "la fa la sma [future greatgrandchild of hers]a", where "talk to" here means "X speaks and X intends that the speech be directed to Y"."talk to a situation/state of affairs" doesn't make much sense to me.
How do you tell whether something is or isn't a situation? What is it about situations that make it nonsensical to talk to one? --And.