Re: existential quantification

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la and cusku di'e

> "Mi troci lo nu mi viska do" is, I think, equivalent to
> "Da poi nu mi viska do zohu mi troci da".
>      ^^^^^ [this is a guess - I don't know any other way to do it]

That's the right way. (Sometimes Lojban does work as one would expect.)

> I would translate this as "I managed to see you".

I have to agree with you, but this is not how things have been thought
up to now. I'm not sure what side to take, consistency or tradition.

> The problem is how to get "I tried to see you", where the attempt
> is, or may be, unsuccessful, so that there is no event of me
> seeing you.

Use the opaque marker! {xe'e lo nu} or {lo'e nu} or more likely
{xe'e le nu} or {le'e nu}.

> I have been told, in the last few months, that "nu" doesn't entail
> its complement bridi is true, but I should have thought that the
> existentially quantifying preceding "lo" does require there to
> be an event.

I think I agree.

> Have I gone wrong?
> What is the solution?

Either be consistent and change our habits, or keep our habits and
live with the inconsistency.

> If this sort of non-factual sumti is found only with "intentional"
> brivla

I think that is the case. At least I can't think of any
counterexamples.

> then a solution might be to render "try" by:
>   "Mi troci lo siho mi viska do"
> (where "siho" is what I think is the idea abstraction cmavo from NU).

That's what si'o is, but I'm not really sure what it means. I always
thought it was a du'u-type thing, rather than a nu-type, so I wouldn't
use it for this.

> - With "troci" suitably defined so that it can accommodate such
> an x2 sumti. The meaning would be: x1 endeavours to realize the
> idea x2.

I don't like it, because it's the same type of thing that was done
with sisku: instead of trying to find the right sumti to use, we
changed the meaning of the selbri to something more complicated.

Jorge