From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 27 08:56:55 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 27 May 2008 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K11Xj-000803-Kg for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 08:56:55 -0700 Received: from narnia.blumen-schwarz.de ([80.190.195.21]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K11Xc-0007zX-7i for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 08:56:55 -0700 Received: from n5829.n.pppool.de ([89.50.88.41]) by narnia.blumen-schwarz.de with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1K11XN-0001Hg-0L for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2008 17:56:41 +0200 From: Roman Naumann To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Assertions of time-relations and precision of abstractions Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:58:04 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <200805271629.13877.eldrikdo@gmail.com> <96f789a60805270747t3a1cf5ack91f12236fc20d2aa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <96f789a60805270747t3a1cf5ack91f12236fc20d2aa@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805271758.06738.roman_naumann@fastmail.fm> X-Spam_score: -5.3 X-Spam_score_int: -52 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: ------------- Start der SpamAssassin Auswertung --------------- Bei Fragen dazu bitte das Forum life.d.cvmx verwenden! Details der Inhaltsanalyse: (-5.3 Punkte, 5.0 benoetigt) -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Nachricht wurde nur über vertrauenswürdige Rechner weitergeleitet -4.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test: 0-1% [score: 0.0040] 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list ---------------- Ende der SpamAssassin Auswertung ----------------- X-Spam-Score: 1.2 X-Spam-Score-Int: 12 X-Spam-Bar: + X-archive-position: 14444 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: roman_naumann@fastmail.fm Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Am Dienstag 27 Mai 2008 16:47:18 schrieb Michael Turniansky: > > Given: {.i broda ba lo nu brode} > > Then: {.i broda .inaja brode} > I think that that's fine to say as long as we understand we are > talking about a _particular_ (le) event/events. To say "I (will) shop > after this TV show is over" does not imply that I've never shopped > before (unless we add a "po'o"/"only" to it, or similar device > (pare'u, etc.)). I agree mostly; in the beginning, I was thinking about claiming {.i le nu broda cu fasnu .inaja le nu brode cu fasnu}, but that would limit the claim to particular _events_, although particular states and other abstractions would be fine as well. So the claim should go for anything _particular_ (le), not only particular events. Thanks for the explanation, I think I (maybe as good as) fully understand the implicit claims of temporally related clauses now, - or can figure them out given some time. (for the other cmavo of selma'o pu) -- mu'o mi'e nam To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.