Re: tenses

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

>> Assuming {citka} means "consume", {cou citka pa plise} must mean
>> {mou citka pa plise}.
>
>What's an example of {co'u broda} that doesn't mean {mo'u broda} then?

Assuming citka means "eat" and not necessarily "consume", then {co'u citka}
means to stop eating for any reason, and {mo'u citka} means to stop eating
by virtue of running out of food.

>I agree, but this has nothing to do with tenses. I am not saying
>"this is the start of an event of my eating an apple". I only
>say "I start eating an apple". There is an apple, there is me, and
>the relationship between those two is that one starts to eat the
>other.

You are arguing by repeated assertion now.  You say "pu'o" means "start
to.." in the pragmatic way it's used in English; others are saying it only
applies to an event which actually ends up occuring, just like the facade
and the church in And's example.  I don't think we'll get beyond this point
until someone starts talking about why their interpretation is more elegant
or useful or consistent than another interpretation.

>> 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}.
>
>Depends what you mean by the tensless claim. But even if that is true,
>the inverse doesn't hold. If {nu co'a porkancu li pano} then not
>necessarily {nu mo'u porkancu li pano}.

If you don't finish, you didn't really count to ten and {co'a} causes the
bridi to refer to the counter's intentions rather than their real acts.
This could be perfectly consistent and workable, but *why*?  The event
contours would strike me as being more logical if they did not affect the
truth value of the selbri, except to indicate when something happened.

>I disagree. It is the event of starting to count that you are describing,
>not necessarily the start of a complete event of counting.
>
>Otherwise, how do you explain {za'o} for example?

Counting to N isn't the best example because the precise end of the action
is specified.  So using "za'o" is contradictory, and we're talking about
pragmatics when we try and figure out how it will be interpreted.  I think
it makes more sense to talk about the contours with bridi where the endpoint
of the action is ellipsized.

If you za'o citka le plise, it probably means you eat the stem and core
after eating the apple -- but it does imply that at some point in time you
citka le plise.  Similarly with co'a:  if you co'a citka le plise, then you
did eat off the apple somewhat, and I think it would be fair to say you
citka le plise, even if you didn't finish it.  I support an additional
understanding that says you can't pu'o citka le plise without later taking a
single bite.  The advantage of that rule is that you could always logically
derive  {da broda de} from {da contour broda de}.  We can't always make
inferences in the language based on syntactic manipulation like that (for
example, I don't think you can say anything about individuals from mass
statements, or vice versa) but if we provide that property to the language
whenever we reasonably can, it contributes to the claim of Lojban being a
logical language.

>> p.s. RE: Chris on {dahi} & {rua}: I agree with everything Kris says,
>> & retract anything necessary.
>
>Was this a post to the whole list? I don't remember reading anything
>that fits with that.

It was meant for the whole list, but my mailer defaults to responding
directly to sender, and sometimes I forget to change it.  I'll repost it to
the whole list now...
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
                      \/   cbogart@quetzal.com