History: CAhA as sumtcita

Source of version: 1 (current)

cf. ((''ca'ai'', ''ka'ei'' and ''nu'oi', and ''nau'a'')) ---- Selma'o ((CAhA)) is a simple tag, like ((PU)) and ((ZAhO)), and so can grammatically tag a sumti. Let us suppose that ''((ka'e))'' is the same as ''su'o((mu'ei))''. Then ''naku ka'e'' is ''no((mu'ei))'', ''ka'eku naku'' is ''me'iro((mu'ei))'', and ''naku ka'eku naku'' (= ''((bi'ai))'') is ''ro((mu'ei))''. Let us further say that ''ca'a'' also refers to possible worlds, like ''ka'e'' and ''bi'ai'', and means ''in this world''. Thus: *''su'o((mu'ei))ku zo'u ganai le trene cu spofu gi mi jai lerci'' = ''su'o((mu'ei)) le du'u le trene cu spofu kei mi jai lerci'' = ''ka'e le du'u le trene cu spofu kei mi jai lerci'' = ''If the train breaks down, I could be late.'' *''naku su'o((mu'ei))ku zo'u ganai mi tadni la lojban gi mi sipna'' = ''no((mu'ei)) le du'u mi tadni la lojban kei mi sipna'' = ''naku ka'e le du'u mi tadni la lojban gi mi sipna'' = ''If I study Lojban, I necessarily don't sleep.'' *''ro((mu'ei))ku zo'u ganai mi megdo rupnu ponse gi mi ricfu'' = ''ro((mu'ei)) le du'u mi megdo rupnu ponse kei mi ricfu'' = ''((bi'ai)) le du'u mi megdo rupnu ponse kei mi ricfu'' = ''If I have a million dollars, I'm necessarily rich.'' One can also use ''ca'a'' as a ((sumtcita)), which would transfer the reference point for ''ca'a'' from this world to the world(s) in which the tagged proposition is true (like ''ca'' as a sumtcita transfers the reference point from the speaker's now to the time of the tagged event), and so I have a hard time coming up with a distinction between ''ca'a'' and ''bi'ai'' when used as a sumtcita, unless someone has a good suggestion. Thus, the last example could also be expressed as ''ca'a le du'u mi megdo rupnu ponse kei mi ricfu'' (see ''((if))''). *''bi'ai'' claims the main bridi for '''all''' worlds in which the sumti is true. ''ca'a'' claims it for '''at least one''' world, namely this one. So I would understand ''ca'a le du'u mi megdo rupnu ponse kei mi ricfu'' to mean: "Having a million dollars, I am rich." --((xorxes)) ** Would ''ca le nu mi megdo rupnu ponse kei mi ricfu'' then mean ''Since I have a million dollars now, I am rich''? -- ((Adam)) *** Let's see if this works: In terms of ''((mu'ei))'', we have ''ka'e'' = ''su'omu'ei'' and ''((bi'ai))'' = ''romu'ei''. Now I would say that ''ca'a'' is to ''ka'e'' as ''le'' is to ''lo'', where the world you have in mind is this world. If this holds, then the sumti of ''ca'a'' would restrict not to all worlds in which the proposition holds, but to all the worlds you have in mind, which you describe by that proposition. I think that would give something like "Having a million dollars (in those worlds I'm considering), I would be rich". This is weaker than "If I had a million dollars, I would be rich", which says that in all worlds in which I have a million dollars I'm rich, and corresponds to ''bi'ai le du'u mi megdo rupnu ponse kei mi ricfu''. Maybe. --((xorxes)) **** Certainly ''ca'a'':''ka'e''::''le'':''lo''; however ''le'' and ''lo'' are not sumtcita, and so it's hard to see what to make of the analogy. ''ca'' also has a default of the speaker's reference point, but that is lost when it is used as a sumtcita, since a sumti tagged by ''ca'' is not claimed to happen now. *** I don't think ''ca'a'' is analogous to ''le''. Rather it is analogous to ''nau''; it is deictic. '''Just as ''nau'' means "the time and place of ''dei''", so ''ca'a'' means "in possible worlds that include the world of ''dei''". Therefore ''ca'a lo'e du'u mi megdo rupnu ponse kei mi ricfu'' would mean "If I have a million rupnu (and in actual fact I do), then I am rich". Likewise, ''nu'o'' means "in possible worlds that do not include the world of ''dei''", so ''nu'o lo'e du'u mi megdo rupnu ponse kei mi ricfu'' would mean "If I had a million dollars (and in fact I don't), then I would be rich". (So ''nu'o'' turns out to be the true way to do counterfactual conditionals.)''' --((And)) **** ''nau'' sets the reference point; the default is the time and place of ''dei'', ((''nau'' as sumtcita|but I don't see why its default wouldn't be overridden when it is used as a sumtcita)), as is the case with other tags. Perhaps a better analogy to ''su'omei/ka'e, ca'a, romei/bi'ai'' is ''su'oroi, ca, roroi''. Unfortunately, possible worlds aren't continuous in the way time is, so it's hard to derive a precription from that analogy. Is there any other tag (other than ''nau''), whose meaning as a sumtcita is in effect "my default value is the same as the tagged sumti"? (i.e. ''ri'u le prenu'' means ''to the right of the person'', not ''to my right, and that's also to the right of the person''. -- ((Adam)) ****According to what I was saying above: The key thing is that ''ca'a'' and ''nu'o'' are deictic (regardless of whether they are tagging a sumti); I'm not saying that the analogy with ''nau'' extends beyond their deixis. They mean the same as ''su'o mu'ei lo'e du'u ko'a broda kei fo'e brode'' ("If ko'a is broda then it could be that fo'e is brode") except that ''ca'a'' says that the possible worlds covered by ''su'o'' include the world of ''dei'' and ''nu'o'' says the the possible worlds don't include the world of ''dei''. Note, then, that ''ca'a broda'' does not quite mean "In ''dei''-world, broda". Rather, that meaning is entailed by the actual meaning, "It could be, and in fact is, the case that broda" = "In some worlds, including ''dei''-world, broda". The sumti tagged by ''ca'a'' serves to restrict the range of possible worlds quantified over. --((And)) ****Concerning: '''so ''nu'o lo'e du'u mi megdo rupnu ponse kei mi ricfu'' would mean "If I had a million dollars (and in fact I don't), then I would be rich". (So ''nu'o'' turns out to be the true way to do counterfactual conditionals.)''' I don't think that's right. The ''nu'o'' sentence has to mean: "If I had a million dollars (and in fact I don't), then I '''could''' be rich", because ''nu'o'' is ''su'omu'ei'' excluding this one, not ''romu'ei'' excluding this one. --((xorxes)) ****Aye, you're right. Do we need a way to say "ro mu'ei-excluding-''dei''-world"? (E.g. should ''nu'oi'' become a ROI with this meaning?) Yes: I think the very example I gave in error proves its utility. But ''ro nu'oi broda'' -- where nu'oi isn't tagging a sumti would not be very useful. What d'you reckon? Is a version of ''nu'oi'' in ROI the way to go? Or is the solution to in some way combine ''mu'ei'' with ''ca'a nai'' (though it seems to me that neither should be within the scope of the other)? (Sorry: my brain's a bit tired.) --((And)) ---- With this interpretation of ''ka'e'' and ''ca'a'': * the two tags act on the bridi as a whole, like normal lojban tenses, instead of on a single sumti (as would be implied by glossing ''ka'e'' as ''can''). ** ''I've heard Jorge suggest that CAhA is not like other tenses, and somehow only works on one sumti as you say. But I find that idea disturbingly irregular so I prefer to interpret it to affect the entire bridi, just like all the other tenses do, even if that makes no sense for some certain contrived cases. --((xod))'' *** ((xorxes))' comments about ''ka'e'' and ''ca'a'' singling out a single place refer to their meaning when they are glossed as ''innately capable'' and ''actually is'', and he complains about the irregularity as much as you do. The interpretation proposed on this page has no such problem. -- ((Adam)) **** That is correct. I agree with ((Adam))'s presentation of ''ka'e'' as sumtcita. --((xorxes)) * ''ka'e nu'' (= ''su'o((mu'ei)) nu'') is useful for discussing events which exist in the noosphere, whether or not they actually occur, whereas ''ca'a nu'' clearly insists that the event must actually occur in this world. ** And ''nu'o nu'' for events that don't occur in ''dei''-world. --((And)) * allows for most of the semantics proposed for ''((mu'ei))'' without using experimental cmavo and without violating anything in ((the book)) or the ((baseline)). ** Although I am strongly in favour of (at least some close approximation of) your proposals, I do think they conflict with ((the book)). See ((''ca'ai'', ''ka'ei'' and ''nu'oi', and ''nau'a'')). --((And)) *** I suppose that it does conflict with the book to some degree, but the explanation in the book of ''ka'e'' is vague enough that I don't think that the problem is so bad. ** ''ka'e'' and ''((bi'ai))'' do render ''((mu'ei))'' partly redundant, but: ###''((bi'ai))'' adds an experimental cmavo, albeit an independently motivated one, so "getting rid of experimental cmavo" is not one of the current proposal's main selling points. **** I hope that I can use ''ca'a'' as a tag instead of ''bi'ai'', and there by use this ''if'' without any experimental cmavo, but this remains to be seen. ###Things like ''so'e mu'ei'' are still not redundant. The prima facie alternative for that, ''so'e cu'o'', has ill-understood semantics and cannot function as a sumtcita. **** I purposefully said that it allows for ''most'' of the semantics of ''mu'ei'' (at least the most common ones). ###''((ba'oi))'' is not rendered redundant by these proposals, and its parallelism with ''((mu'ei))'' is then a reason for wanting to keep ''((mu'ei))'' **** You have yet to write up your description of ''ba'oi'' and indicate how it is useful. **** Whoops. Will do it when ((And|I)) have a moment. ** ... therefore, looking at it as a pure design issue, '''I'd say that it'd be better to drop ''ka'e'' (from these proposals) and drop ''bi'ai'' and have ''mu'ei'' in their stead. That would leave ''ca'a'' and ''nu'o'' meaning "''su'o mu'ei''-(not)-including-world-of-''dei''". This in turn would leave ''ka'e'' free to have its "capability" meaning now entrenched in some usage. Putative baseline-violation would then be confined to the little-used ''ca'a'' and ''nu'o''''' --((And)) *** I think that treating some members of CAhA differently from others isn't a good idea. Also, no matter what its interpretation, I'm nearly certain that ''ka'e'' is not simply an abbreviation for ''kakne'', which seems to be mostly how it's used. -- ((Adam)) *** Fair enough. But the facts as ((And|I)) see them are: ###''mu'ei'' can do everything that ''ka'e'' does, but ''ka'e'' cannot do everything that ''mu'ei'' does. IOW, ''mu'ei'' makes ''ka'e'' redundant, but ''ka'e'' doesn't make ''mu'ei'' redundant. ###To get cmavo with the meanings we want, we have to fight one of two battles. Either some or all members of CAhA need to be redefined from their documented meanings, or experimental cmavo (((''ca'ai'', ''ka'ei'' and ''nu'oi', and ''nau'a''|''ca'ai'', ''ka'ei'' and ''nu'oi')) must be used. But at least the battle need be fought over ''ka'e'' for no other reason than harmony with the rest of CAhA. Personally I think it's good to have a few cmavo that can harmlessly be abused by people who don't care about rigour, so I'd happily wash my hands of ''ka'e'' and say "Here you are, do what you like with it, it won't offend my sensibilities...". -- ((Adam)) ---- * If ''broda ca le nu brode'' moves broda to the time when nu brode occurs, then shouldn't ''broda ka'e le nu brode'' move broda to the imaginary worlds where nu brode is possible? --((xod)) ** I think it would, and that makes it a brilliant rendering of hypothetical 'if'. And while I'm at it, I think this use of ka'e is much more useful than 'innate capacity', which is utterly impossible to formalise. Count me in for this "subversion of the baseline": Kudos, Adam -- nitcion. *** Fine, just when we '''really didn't''' need yet another way to say "if". What does this make, seven now? What a shame that sumtcita ka'e couldn't have a more interesting meaning. --((xod)) **** Which of those other ''if''s did you want to use for this meaning? For me, this finally more or less solves the problem of a general-purpose, formal ''if'' which claims neither too much nor too little, and for the most part without using experimental cmavo. What other meaning did you want to give to ''ka'e'', etc. as as sumtcita? -- ((Adam)) *** None of the proposed cmavo-based ways to say "((if))" actually approximate the meaning of "((if))", except for the ones discussed on this page. This page is not providing "yet another way to say 'if'". Rather, it is going a long way towards resolving the issue of how to say 'if'. --((And)) __If__ you guys think that the first satisfactory way to express conditionals in Lojban was discovered at long last in autumn 2002, __then__ let's settle this in jboske instead of cluttering up this wiki page. We'll come back here when done. --((xod))