Re: Events & sisku [was: le/lo]

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

John:
> > Further, how come nu gets this definition, but not, say, prenu?
> > Why don't we define "prenu" as "potential person" rather than
> > "actual person"? I'm not clear as to why nu gets special
> > treatment.
>
> Well, actually, "prenu" can mean "is potentially a person"; specifically,
> that is "ka'e prenu", but the absence of "ka'e" does not necessary
> entail "ca'a", although "ca'a" is often the sensible default.

I've been thinking about this all day during cig breaks outside
in the cold, and have composed and then erased several abortive
replies.

I think there are alternative possible ontologies here, so I
enter into this debate more in the hope that we understand
our own and each other's views, than in any attempt to persuade.

Part of what it takes to be a prenu is being part of the
physical world. Do the words from CAhA have to do with
whether the pool of quantified-over individuals is drawn
from the locally-real world in particular or from possible
worlds in general?

If Yes, then is it the case that brivla determine whether
the individuals that are their sumti are necessarily drawn
from the same world that the bridi is true of? (E.g. "cause"
and "hit" would have sumti drawn from the world of the
causing and hitting, while x2of "prevent" and "imagine"
and "seek" would not need to be drawn from the same world
as the preventing/seeking/imagining.)

If Yes to that, then I can at least sort of understand where
you are coming from, though I'd have to think about whether it
ultimately makes sense to me.

--And