Re: Scope of da'i in counterfactual implications

On 3/31/07, Arnt Richard Johansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:45:24PM -0300, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
> > On 3/26/07, Arnt Richard Johansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > ganai da'i do viska le mi citno mensi gi ju'o do djuno le du'u ri paz=
vau
> > >
> > But I don't really understand what difference da'i and da'inai are mean=
t
> > to signal in the CLL examples. They seem to be a ba/pu distinction rath=
er
> > than a da'i/da'inai one:
> >
> > If you were to see my younger sister,
> > you would certainly know she is pregnant.
> >
> > If you saw my younger sister,
> > you would certainly know she is pregnant.
>
> Perhaps we should not look too closely at the actual English
> translations.

I think we shouldn't. They don't really make much sense to me.

> Suppose, for instance that my younger sister died before you were
> born. Then you could not possibly have seen her, yet I can truthfully
> say that if you *had* been around (hypothetical viewpoint), then you
> would know she was pregnant. In this case, da'i nai would be
> inappropriate.

Right, but the English "if you were to see her" would be completely
wrong. "If you were to see her" can only refer to a potential future event.
It's "if you had seen her" for an unrealized past event.

"da'i" could eventually be used in both those cases, with ba or pu
respectively,
but "da'i" doesn't say that the event has not or will not be realized, it o=
nly
says that it need not have been or end up being realized.

> On the other hand, supposing that my younger sister is about as old
> as both you and I, and I know that you may very well have met her
> last week, then the da'i nai version is the most appropriate.

No, because "da'inai" would say that the event was or will be realized
for sure, not that it perhaps may have been or may be realized.

> Actually, now that I think about it, the second (factual) translation
> might be an erratum. The straight implicational reading should say
> "you certainly know ...".

I think this needs more clarification.

In English you can say:

(1) If you had seen my sister, you would...

(2) If you were to see my sister, you would...

(3) If you saw my sister, you ...

(1) presuposes that you did not see her, and speculates about what
would have happened if you had. (2) presupposes that you have
not *yet* seen her, and it says what will happen if you do end up seeing
her. (3) allows that you may have seen her or not, and says what happens
in case you did.

"da'i" is like (3), it has none of the presuppositions of (1) or (2) as far=
 as
I can tell.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


=20
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected]=20
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
=20