Re: tenses

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Jorge@
> > I trust that we have established (i) that {ba broda} logically claims
> > that some event of brodaing is located at some time that is after
> > {ba} (the word), (ii) that {ba broda} is false if no event of brodaing
> > is located at some time after {ba}, (iii) that to assert {ba broda}
> > is to be on epistemically shaky ground, (iv) that (iii) does not have
> > any bearing on the accuracy of (i-ii), and (v) that the word LIE does
> > not mean "say something that is untrue".
> I agree with all of that, but it doesn't apply to {capu'o broda}, which
> is about a present state. There is no {ba} involved.

IAd have thought {ca puo broda} means "now is the run-up to brodaing",
but my cmaste has {capuo}="has been", so IAm a bit confused on this
one.

> I agree that we often say things that are not true simply because we
> are mistaken, or because we are lazy and know that what we say will
> not be interpreted literally, not because we are lying. But in the
> case of {capu'o}, the claim is not false if the event ends up not
> happening, as long as it really was about to happen.
> In other words, if you say {le bolci ba farlu}, I can say
> "you were wrong, I caught it fefore it fell" but if you say
> {le bolci pu'o farlu} I would say "you were right, but I caught
> it before it fell".

I agree iff {puo} modifies the selbri, so that the meaning is
"puo-farlu(le bolci)", and not "farlu(le bloci)" - so that
puo-farlu(b) does not entail farlu(b).

> > Suppose koa started to eat an apple, but never finished it, and
> > suppose you don't want to falsely claim that there was an event
> > of koa eating an apple, which is what {koa coa citka pa plise} would
> > do (I presume).
> I don't think that it would claim that. All it claims is that the
> event starts, there is no claim that it won't be prematurely
> interrupted before it is completed. Why should {ko'a co'a citka pa
> plise} entail that {ko'a mo'u citka pa plise}?

{coa citka pa plise} entails that there is an apple and that this
apple is eaten. If the apple isn't eaten then there can't be an event
of the apple being eaten, so there can't be a beginning of that
event.
See below for my new & better example.

> If it does entail that, then how are we to interpret {co'u}? If you
> say {ko'a co'u citka pa plise} then is may be false that the event
> ever started?

Assuming {citka} means "consume", {cou citka pa plise} must mean
{mou citka pa plise}.

> > What one should in those circumstances say is, I
> > suggest, {coa dahi nu koa citka pa plise} or {coa nu dahi koa citka
> > pa plise}, where {dahi} has the function of expanding the universe
> > to include the imaginable as well as the actual.
> Why not just {da'i ko'a co'a citka pa plise}?

No, it should be {coa nu dahi koa citka pa plise}: it claims that
there is a (real) event, X, which can be conceptualized as the initial
portion of a possibly-imaginary event.

> But in any case, I very much disagree. In my opinion {co'a} makes a
> claim about the start of the event only, in no way suggesting that the
> event will ever be completed.
Lojbab on half-eaten apple:
> I would claim that co'u citka le plise never occurred, but certainly an
> event of eating the apple did start.
to which Goran responds:
> .ue.ienai
> I would be very hard pressed to find an event that sa'e has no end. In
> the apple case here, na nu mo'u citka, but certainly nu co'u citka. I
> can't visualise a person forever eating the same apple.

The answer to Goran is that although nu cou citka, na nu cou citka pa
plise, because nu citka pa plise only if nu mou citka pa plise.

To Jorge & Lojbab: Imagine a church-facade with no church behind it.
In English, you can say "that is facade of a church", but in Lojban
you couldn;t say "ta flira lo malsi", because that says there is a
church such that that is its facade. You'd have to say {ta flira
lo dahi malsi}.

Now, imagine the act of counting to ten, {nu kacporsi li pano}.
If {nu kacporsi li pano} then it must also be that {nu coa kacporsi
li pano} and {nu mou kacporsi li pano} and {nu cou kacporsi li
pano}. If you start counting but stop at two, then this can be
described as {nu coa kacporsi li re} or {nu coa nu dahi kacporsi li
pano} or {nu coa nu dahi kacporsi li vovovovovovo}, with the last
two pragmatically implying that the counter's intention was to
get to 10 and 444444 respectively. But if you stop at two, it is
not the case that there is an event of you counting to ten. Since
there is no such event, you cannot describe its start - you
cannot say {coa kacporsi li pano}.

---
And
p.s. RE: Chris on {dahi} & {rua}: I agree with everything Kris says,
& retract anything necessary.