[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 02:29:33AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
> > On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:29:04PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:57:20AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
[...]
> > > > {lakne} would correspond to something like {so'emu'ei} or
> > > > {so'imu'ei}
> > >
> > > Or just {su'omu'ei} with a different accessability relation
> >
> > To clarify more, the reason I would think the simpler explaination
> > of {so'emu'ei} may not suffice is that {so'emu'ei} is just based
> > on number of worlds, regardless of how 'far' they are from the real
> > world. One could either look at lakne as a different accessabilty
> > relation (which is an easy way), or as being the same but requiring
> > a certain number of the worlds which are within a certain 'distance'
> > from the real one
> >
> > Somesuch
>
> 'possible world theory' as an explanatory model for conditions,
> includes the premise that the worlds that are quantified over are
> contextually selected for relevance. So in context, all worlds
> quantified by {mu'ei} would be accessible -- within a contextually
> acceptable 'distance'. So lakne should indeed be so'e mu'ei.
That works as well. One could either construe lakne to mean ``so'e
mu'ei which are relevant, though probably only so'u mu'ei out of
all of the ones which a single truth would make cumki'', or something
like ``su'o mu'ei according to this other, stricter notion of
accessabilty which excludes a lot of non-relevant worlds''.
I suppose the first one maybe is actually easier. I dunno though,
I think both approaches make sense. Chances are this has been
investigated more rigorously than just `seems to make sense to me'
though, so I'll probably just shut up on this point.
Oh, also I think both lakne and cumki are probably actually about
ba'oi and not just mu'ei. (Though this could also be left to
relevance).
> If you want to argue that we need some explicit way of indicating
> the degree of accessibility of the worlds -- and I can see how
> this could be the key difference between kakne and cumki -- then
> we need some new device.
I was actually considering suggesting having mu'ei be MOI so that
it could have an additional sumti place (taking a si'o) explaining
the notion of accessability. I don't think this is actually needed
though, because, as you're saying, it can apparently be just left
to context. (or I suppose could be said with te munje).
> I accept, btw, that one and the same state of affairs could be
> described as {su'o mu'ei} (and not so'e mu'ei) with one range of
> possible worlds, and {so'e mu'ei} with another range. But what
> this illustrates is that the interpretation is dependent on
> context. lakne and cumki (and na'e lakne) mean different things,
> but if you vary the contextual assumptions then they can end up
> describing the same situation.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binSVje9BGpiA.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped