[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >For things like "Sherlock Holmes was a detective", "mi djica lo nu"
> >-- we variously need to indicate whether the predication (is a detective,
> >is a nu) holds in This World, or not in This World, or not necessarily
> >in This World. It has been suggested by several people that ca'a,
> >nu'o and ka'e serve this function: Sherlock Holmes nu'o is a
> >detective; mi djica lo ka'e nu klama la brada plise
>
> Are fictional worlds really in the same league as possible worlds?
Yes or no. "Possible worlds" as used for conditionals are "possible
worlds relevantly similar to This World", whereas fictional worlds
don't involve that criterion of relevant similarity, and furthermore
whereas possible worlds are normally quantified over (ro, so'e, su'o),
fictional worlds would normally involve reference to a specific
world ("In a certain world, other than This World, SH is a detective").
> It seems to me that "Sherlock holmes was a detective" is very much
> a {ca'a}-type statement. It applies in a fictional context, but
> otherwise it is no different from "my uncle was a detective"
> Possible-world statements are "Sherlock Holmes could have
> been a detective" or "my uncle could have been a detective"
I am sympathetic to the idea that one and the same notion of world
should not generalize over fictional worlds and (let's call them)
'potential worlds'. But this means that when we want to refer
the the broda that is, or isn't, or may or may not be, a broda
in This World, CAhA is not going to do the job for us.
> That's how I would interprtet the nu'o-statement. "This World"
> does not contrast with fictional worlds but with hypothetical
> worlds. In a fictional context "This World" is the fictional
> context, and one can make hypotheticals based on it. "Sherlock
> Holmes was a detective" can be used to mean "the character
> named Sherlock Holmes had the role of a detective [in Conan
> Doyle's books]", in which case I suppose we're using a kind of
> metonymy
When I say "SH was a detective", I mean it quite literally, not
as a piece of metonymy. But I am claiming it to be true of a
certain fictional world. We are not dealing solely with works
of fiction here: {mi djica lo nu I was born rich} invokes an
imaginary ('fictional') world in which "da nu I was born rich",
and says that I want that the world in which I do the wanting
was the world in which "da nu I was born rich".
So to reiterate, I am happy to accept that 'imaginary' worlds
need to be handled differently from 'potential' worlds, but I
have no patience with those who want to deny us a distinction
among imaginary worlds and the real world.
In support of the idea that imaginary worlds are different from
potential worlds is your point that there can be potential
imaginary worlds, as in "Sherlock Holmes could have been knighted",
= "in some possible worlds relevantly similar to a certain world
(other than This World ~ not necessarily This World), SH was
knighted".
> >It's not the same as saying "In some possible future (of Now) SH is
> >a detective", "In most possible futures of Now, such and such would
> >be the case". (Those are the meanings of cumki/lakne, su'o/so'e
> >ba'oi.)
>
> Right. But we don't really ever need to quantify over fictional
> worlds, nor do we need a tense-type marker to tag fiction
We don't need to quantify over imaginary worlds, but we desperately
need markers to indicate:
* true of This World
* true of some/a certain World but not of This World
* true of some/a certain World but not necessarily of This World
The need is desperate because we often talk about imaginary things,
especially imaginary events.
> {mi djica lo nu ...} is a different story. In this case we are
> dealing with the real world and hypotheticals based on it
> I don't see a problem with {mi djica lo cumki} or {mi djica
> lo lakne}
I don't see a problem with those either, because it is not intrinsic
to the nature of lo cumki/lakne that they be manifest in spacetime.
But it is intrinsic to the nature of lo nu that it is manifest in
spacetime, which is why it is necessary to distinguish between
actual and imaginary events.
> [lo'e/le du'u]
> >I'll check my archives to try to locate the messages where this
> >was discussed. There were a few messages from me and xorxes
> >probably worth putting on the wiki, not because they decided
> >anything but because they spelt out all the issues and
> >considerations pretty clearly
>
> I think it's these and follow-ups:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/595
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/message/618
I haven't checked those, but they're probably the same ones that
I've forwarded.
--And.