From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 13 09:32:16 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DhrrE-0001U3-6A for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:32:16 -0700 Received: from bay23-dav10.bay23.hotmail.com ([64.4.22.190] helo=hotmail.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DhrrD-0001Tv-40 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:32:16 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:32:14 -0700 Message-ID: Received: from 65.218.132.157 by BAY23-DAV10.phx.gbl with DAV; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:32:13 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [65.218.132.157] X-Originating-Email: [betsemes@hotmail.com] X-Sender: betsemes@hotmail.com From: "Betsemes" To: References: <20050608210056.GE15659@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560506081422399a5088@mail.gmail.com> <20050608220428.GF15659@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d1756050609072757542a3c@mail.gmail.com> <925d175605060911227d7c6445@mail.gmail.com> <925d175605060914082a76fce1@mail.gmail.com> <20050610223041.GT22480@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: zvati Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:30:21 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2005 16:32:14.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[7488D7F0:01C57035] X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-archive-position: 1514 X-Approved-By: betsemes@hotmail.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: betsemes@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners > There is no disagreement about that: bu'u is solely about space. > Period. > Do you agree on this?: >I consider it >purely locational too, it's just that I don't accept that something >that is not there can serve to indicate a location. {bu'u le karce} >means "at the location of the car", not "at any location the car >ever was or will be". {bu'u lo nu pu salci} indicates the location >where a party was held in the past, not a location where, for >example, at some point in the future, a party will have been held >in the past. Until now, I have considered Lojban a language where the definitions are literal. So if you state that something is locational only, then I will assume that time has nothing to do with it. But if you say that the involved things have to be simultaneously at the same place, then it has also to do with time. If we need to consider that bu'u *must* have to accept an argument which is simultaneously present with whatever the sentence is about, then I'll continue to contend that for it to be possible, they must be present at a certain timeframe so that they could actually be present at the same location. Think about an appointment. In order for you to meet someone else, you not just need the location of the appointment; you also need the date/time of it. That's also the case with events. But if bu'u must have that time constraint in order to work then I'll accept it. It's just I don't accept that it is purely location-related, it does have a time component on it. Now I have to ask you in which point you disagreed with Jorge about zvati and what updates must be done. Yes, I'm starting to think that Jorge is right about zvati too. But that also means that I'll disagree about zvati being purely locational if bu'u = fi'o se zvati. I'll hold the same disagreement and frankly speaking, I don't think I'll change my mind in the near future.