Re: Existence and occurrence of events (was: ago24 & replies)

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> > > > > If the event I try for occurs, then I've succeeded. If some
> > > > > other related event occurs, but not the one I've tried for,
> > > > > then I've failed.
> > > > You're right if you translate it as {mi troci lo nu mi muvgau
> > > > lo rokci}. If you translate it as {mi troci lo nu lo rokci cu
> > > > muvdu} then you're wrong.
> > > Why? What do you mean by {mi troci lo nu lo rokci cu muvdu}?
> > I try to bring about an event of the rock moving. I try to get
> > the rock to move.
> Ok, I think I see it now. If I had said {mi troci le nu le rokci
> cu muvdu}, then there would be no problem. If the event I had in
> mind happened then I succeeded. If it didn't, then I failed. There
> can be no confusion with other events that I didn't have in mind.
> On the other hand {mi troci lo nu le rokci cu muvdu} is analogous to
> {mi djica lo plise}. I am only claiming that there is one event (at least)
> among {ro lo nu le rokci cu muvdu} which I try, and if another one
> of those events happens to happen, then I didn't necessarily succeed.

I see what you're saying. Whether or not you're right simply depends
on the definition of {troci}, or of the "succeeding" which trying
implies. Has one succeeded simply if the event one tried to bring
about comes about, or has one succeeded only if one is the cause
of the event coming about. You appear to assume the former,
whereas Lojbab & pc appear to assume the latter.

> Do we agree now?

I shall stay neutral. But the disagreement is of the sort that
we can live with. I imagine we could agree (if we allow membership
of a category to be a matter of degree) that if the specific
event I tried to bring about comes about without me being at all
responsible for it, then this is at least sort-of succeeding,
even if not 100%-no-two-ways-about-it succeeding.

 ---
And