Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c01::232;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+gZtgJfex3NafhF9OZj3L1WY+H6zsX30nuVmoR5amd08ny7FA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+gZtg+wPBdc-Y_Xkk6T51qKU0JobTsC5MRW_LW9kFDbZsBPJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1367501520.18899.YahooMailNeo@web184401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CA+gZtgJfex3NafhF9OZj3L1WY+H6zsX30nuVmoR5amd08ny7FA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 19:56:59 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2dhzFCom3jOJyhPUROGRPR3ZAvTqX2LLAzhejCM4AS7GA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Time-(non)local sumti (was: Mixing tenses, on the
 beginners list)
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122ee42e9e4a504dbc426a9
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--089e0122ee42e9e4a504dbc426a9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:32 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> Think of 'mi' as in the same class as 'lo' phrases, "the salient ...".
>> Otherwise you will  get into all manner of paradoxes (as old as philosophy,
>> for the most part) of no practical value.
>>
> Even claiming that doing so makes sense is a rather fundamental
> philosophical claim, namely that things like people can even be understood
> as being time-local in the first place.
>

I think that claim is not too philosophical, it's just a simple observation
that people can be understood that way, otherwise we wouldn't be able to
understand contrasts like "the new me" vs "the old me".


> Still, this begs the question of what it means to be, say, {lo ca me mi
> ku}. If {mi} can be time-nonlocal in some contexts and time-local in
> others, then is {lo ca me mi ku} local or nonlocal? If this depends on
> context, how does one indicate that it is one or the other?
>

I would say that if you are using "lo [ca] me mi ku" instead of plain "mi"
then chances are you must be thinking of a plural "mi", be it spatially or
temporally. Otherwise why wouldn't you use plain "mi" instead? If you use
"ca", then the suggestion is that the plurality occurs temporally
(otherwise you would use something like "lo vi me mi", "lo vu me mi" to
restrict it. This of course is not a full specification. As usual, the
price of infinite precision is infinite verbosity. You could say "lo ca
jenai pu me mi" to select the present me that excludes the past one, You
could use "lo ze'e me mi" to indicate the one that has always been and
always will be me and so on. I don't expect these kind of expressions to
become common though because it doesn't seem to make much difference
whether we think of objects as (time non-local) wholes or as strings of
(time local) stages. For a distinction to be strongly marked in language it
has to make a relevant difference.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--089e0122ee42e9e4a504dbc426a9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Ian Johnson <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:blindbravado@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">blindbravado@gmail.com=
</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:32 AM, John E Clif=
ford <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:kali9putra@yahoo.com" target=
=3D"_blank">kali9putra@yahoo.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>


<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"font-size:12pt;font-famil=
y:times new roman,new york,times,serif"><div><span>Think of &#39;mi&#39; as=
 in the same class as &#39;lo&#39; phrases, &quot;the salient ...&quot;.=A0=
 Otherwise you will=A0 get into all manner of paradoxes (as old as philosop=
hy, for the most part) of no practical value.=A0 </span></div>


</div></div></blockquote></div><div>Even claiming that doing so makes sense=
 is a rather fundamental philosophical claim, namely that things like peopl=
e can even be understood as being time-local in the first place.</div>

</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think that claim is no=
t too philosophical, it&#39;s just a simple observation that people can be =
understood that way, otherwise we wouldn&#39;t be able to understand contra=
sts like &quot;the new me&quot; vs &quot;the old me&quot;.</div>

<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D=
"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div> Still, this begs the questio=
n of what it means to be, say, {lo ca me mi ku}. If {mi} can be time-nonloc=
al in some contexts and time-local in others, then is {lo ca me mi ku} loca=
l or nonlocal? If this depends on context, how does one indicate that it is=
 one or the other?=A0<br>

</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would say that i=
f you are using &quot;lo [ca] me mi ku&quot; instead of plain &quot;mi&quot=
; then chances are you must be thinking of a plural &quot;mi&quot;, be it s=
patially or temporally. Otherwise why wouldn&#39;t you use plain &quot;mi&q=
uot; instead? If you use &quot;ca&quot;, then the suggestion is that the pl=
urality occurs temporally (otherwise you would use something like &quot;lo =
vi me mi&quot;, &quot;lo vu me mi&quot; to restrict it. This of course is n=
ot a full specification. As usual, the price of infinite precision is infin=
ite verbosity. You could say &quot;lo ca jenai pu me mi&quot; to select the=
 present me that excludes the past one, You could use &quot;lo ze&#39;e me =
mi&quot; to indicate the one that has always been and always will be me and=
 so on. I don&#39;t expect these kind of expressions to become common thoug=
h because it doesn&#39;t seem to make much difference whether we think of o=
bjects as (time non-local) wholes or as strings of (time local) stages. For=
 a distinction to be strongly marked in language it has to make a relevant =
difference.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div style>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div style><br></di=
v>
</div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

--089e0122ee42e9e4a504dbc426a9--