Re: On the tense system of ZAhO (short)

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

Bob:
>
> Another way to understand ZAhO is to remember that they are *not*
> about time as we normally think of it at all.  They are about states
> of a process.
>
> Imagine you are talking about a nuclear reactor.  It can be in the
> states of being unbuilt {pu'o}, built and operating {ca'o}, or
> decommissioned {ba'o}.  In addition, there is a startup date {co'a}, a
> `natural' (i.e., planned for) decommissioning date {mo'u}, and an
> actual decommissioning date {co'u}.
>
I don't think that:

ca'o broda= it's operating
ba'o broda= it's decomissioned

can be true using the same broda, as your following example shows.


> If I say, "The reactor is decommissioned," you know what state it is
> in.  If you want to translate into time-based terms, you can do so and
> say, ~The reactor is now in the time period after its operation, in
> the aftermath of its operational period."  You can then make a `free
> translation' and say, "The reactor was operating."
>
> Most of the time, such a free translation would be accurate.  However,
> it would not be accurate for the Shoreham Nuclear power plant because
> that plant was decommissioned after building, but before operating.
>

I agree, talking of decomission and of operation are unrelated things
(in both English and Lojban.)

> The sentence "The reactor is decommissioned," makes a veridical claim
> about the current state, not about the other states.  Translating
> {ba'o} as a kind of `past tense' causes you to make unsupported (but
> very often correct) veridical claims about a previous state.
>

A veridical claim that says that an event that was going on in the past
is no longer going on, and that characterizes the present state.

> Since there is often a strong corrolation between the way of talking
> with PU and the way of talking with ZAhO, we often imagine that the
> two types of tense are close, but they are not.
>

Close by what standard?

Jorge