Message-Id: <199308141221.AA01444@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Sat, 14 Aug 1993 08:22:26 -0400
Reply-To: vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: VILVA@VIIKKI21.HELSINKI.FI
Subject:      mi ca ca'o jimpe lei me zo za'o
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

I am writing this from home through a very slow link and
rather than trying to read and comment the postings concerning
ZAhOs I decided to write this as a separate posting.


I am not correcting what I said in my last posting abou ZAhOs
and existence. There isn't much need for that. But know I think
I can tell where all the trouble lies.

The trouble is -- to put it bluntly -- that Lojban and English
are very different languages which makes it necessary to go
into lengthy explanations which then get mixed up with the
essence. ZAhOs are a prime example. The English tense system
has no equivalents to ZAhOs. Well, almost none. I think that
'I am coming' is rather near to 'mi ca'o klama'.

Statements using ZAhOs talk about states and when we try to
explain these statements in English we reformulate them in
terms of events -- but they ARE NOT statements about events,
they are statements about states, more specifically states
of the sumti.

A statement like "ko'a ba'o klama" is NOT a predication about
"le nu ko'a klama" -- it IS a predication about "ko'a" which
says simply '*he is in the state of having come" or "he is in
the aftermath of his coming". It is a predication about ko'a
but makes NO existential claim about him. There are always
predications which can be made -- at least "le dacti ca na
zasti" which clearly doesn't claim that the object exists.

This is the essence.

   co'o mi'e veion

------------------------------------------------------------------

 Veijo Vilva       vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi