WikiDiscuss

pc:
> --- And Rosta <a.rosta@v21.me.uk> wrote:
> > pc:
> > > --- And Rosta <a.rosta@v21.me.uk> wrote:
> > > > Consider English "There is at least one
> > cure
> > > > for AIDS, and
> > > > we discussed it". That entails or very very
> > > > strongly
> > > > implicates that one can go out into the
> > world
> > > > and find
> > > > at least one cure for AIDS. "We discussed
> > at
> > > > least one
> > > > cure for AIDS" doesn't imply that the AIDS
> > cure
> > > > is
> > > > necessarily real. So the two English
> > sentences
> > > > seem not
> > > > to be synonymous. But the Lojban
> > equivalents
> > > > are
> > > > synonymous, and are equivalent to English
> > "We
> > > > discussed
> > > > at least one AIDS cure". So I want to know
> > how
> > > > to render
> > > > in Lojban the English "There is at least
> > one
> > > > AIDS cure,
> > > > and we discussed it".
> > > >
> > > > To reiterate (for the sake of anyone else
> > > > reading this), I
> > > > am not saying that it is the job of *xorlo*
> > to
> > > > provide a
> > > > way of translating "There is at least one
> > AIDS
> > > > cure,
> > > > and we discussed it". Rather, I'm saying
> > that
> > > > one would
> > > > like Lojban to have a way of translating
> > it,
> > > > and that
> > > > xorlo happens not to provide it.
> > >
> > > What I mean by saying that xorlo seems to be
> > a
> > > "fix" that destroys an unbroken system:
> > > {da cure — seems nearly impossible to say
> > for a
> > > material rather than a doctor la aids ije
> > mia
> > > casnu da} v. {mi'a casnu tu'a lo cure be la
> > > aids} (using the intensional object rather
> > than
> > > the intensional place method.
> >
> > But we discuss the cure, not the abstraction.
> > And
> > what would be the abstraction that tu'a
> > abbreviates?
> > Or is {tu'a} just a marker showing that the
> > discussee
> > does not necessarily exist (at least as a cure)
> > in
> > the same world as the discussion?
>
> Yes, it is not immediately clear which
> abstraction to use. I am inclined to think it is
> usually events: What we discuss is either
> whether (or that) the cure exists or what it does
> or how it does it. Just discussing the cure tout
> court is a little like needing just a doctor, not
> a doctor doing something. But in any case, it
> does give a world creator to potentially distance
> the object.

If this were so, it ought to be so also for cures
that do exist, for I think existing and nonexisting
cures can be discussed in the same way. So if tu'a
is required for not-necessarily-existing cures,
it should be required for necessarily-existing
ones too.

Although I too at one time pushed for the sort of
solution you're advocating, it no longer rings
true for me (because the solution doesn't seem to
fit the actual meaning). Two solutions I can see
are:
1. Words (probably tcita) meaning "exists in local
real world" and "doesn't necessarily exist in local
real world".
2. Something like the XS gadri proposal, where
there are two LAhE (or similar) such that PA LAhE1
lo broda quantifies over broda in the local real
world and PA LAhE2 quantifies over broda regardless
of whether they're in the local real world.

Solution (1) seems far less disruptive to xorlo
and hence to the progress and consensus that the
BPFK appears to have achieved.

--And.