[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/16/2002 9:33:58 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << Are impossible propositions the same as logical contradictions, or something >> Prety much the same (I'm hedging because I se you're going to play around with "impossible" later). << I would have said that there are impossible events rather than impossible propositions. For example, being in two places at once would be an impossible event, but not a logical contradiction: lo'e nu mi zvati la paris ecabo la romas cu na cumki >> Well, that depends -- and if you want to go that particular way, the "impossible propositons" is broader than "logical contradictions." I am inclined to say that that someone is in two different places at the same time is a logical contradiction. Though, oddly, not that he is in two named or identified places -- since it is logically possible that they are in fact the same place. << Also, I agree that (barring fuzziness) an event can't be both possible and impossible, but I have no problem with {lo'e nu ko'a cumki cu na cumki} or with {lo'e nu ko'a na cumki cu cumki}, they just involve different levels of abstraction, and that's how I would tend to interpret "impossible possible event" and "possible impossible event". >> Well, if you pull out your magic bullet, the {lo'e} tht makes everything possible, then I suppose that -- in the absence of a coherent explanation (which gets harder if new trick you use this for) -- I can't argue with you. But I take this use as evidence tht whatever position it is meant to support is ridiculous. This time, however, there is a reading of {lo'e} that makes this quite OK (though not one you would accept, on the basis of previous evidence: just {lo} in fact -- or even {le}). I do tend to think of possibility in terms of S5, but the others are possible reading and can be forced. But OK, so there are impossible events; nothing follows from that about replacing {du'u}. In any case, {ka'e} is not {cumki} and, in fact, given its relation to {kakne} doesn't even make sense in a tense position, since it is about objects and their capabilities, not about events or action or.. except secondarily (I don't think it is an innate property of seeing that I can do it). |