perfective counting

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

And:
>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}.

OK.  This makes sense iff the discussion is about a future counting to
10, given no pragmatic considerations.  But of course, any time we are
talking about the future using standard (non-dream) epistemologies, we
cannot "know" what is to occur, and thus I think all future tenses have
an implicit da'i even if it is not stated.  And of course, if you were
talking about a past event where you know that the person stopped at
two, you would not talk about nu da'i kacporsi na'ebo li re because no
other number occured.

This seems similar to the ball-rolling-off-the-table problem, in which I
think we agreed that we could talk about something happening "pu'o lenu
farlu le loldi le jubme" even though it is perfectly possible that
someone might interfere and prevent the ball from reaching the floor.
"lenu" is in any case fine; "lonu" is questionable.

Jorge suggests a different idea when he mentions the interpretation of
tenselessness.  One doesn't need "da'i" if one simply presumes that in
dealing with future tenses, one is normally dealing with an implicit
ka'e or nu'o instead of ca'a.  Only an explicit "ca'a" would then be
incorrect.

PS. kacporsi looks backwards to me.  I think it should be porkancu,
which is a kind of counting rather than a kind of sequence.

Chris:
>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.

Well, the potential tense may take care of this, but then again:  who is
to say that the event never completes?  Five years later, the person
resumes the count at 3 and reaches 10 and the event is complete.  Or the
interceptor of the dropping ball lets go and allows the ball to resume
its drop.

lojbab