[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/17/2002 3:31:08 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@hidden.email writes: << > {du'u} doesn't seem to have much to do with events. >> Sorry, I took you to be trying to define {du'u} in terms of {ka'e nu}. As for the cases you have in mind, while I suppose that the same situation makes a proposition true and an the event described by the proposition actual, I have trouble understanding "A believes p happens" as a direct relation between A and p, rather than a relation between A and the proposition "that p." I suppose there is another relation -- which I would not like to call "believe" -- that holds in these cases. And I am less inclined (for whatever reason) to mind replacing cases that involve evetns with constructions about propositions: "I want that p" seems quite easily replacable by "I want that that p be true." I think this comes out of the mind set that finds it easier to believe that propositions exist when not true than that events exist when not occurrent -- something to do with levels of abstraction again, I guess. << As I say, I'm not saying they're the same thing. I'm wondering if we can use one to the exclusion of the other, given the extreme difficulty or perhaps even arbitrariness of deciding which to use with a given selbri. >> Well, I am pretty surte that there are cases outside of selbri (and what about {jetnu} and {jitfa} within brivla as selbri) where the distinction needs to be maintained. Semantics if nowhere else. |