From lojbab@GREBYN.COM Ukn Aug 2 23:42:22 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 2 Aug 1993 23:42:21 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4747; Mon, 02 Aug 93 23:41:14 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0145; Mon, 02 Aug 93 23:42:40 EDT Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 23:41:09 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: On the tense system X-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <_hXIcICUSnE.A.0WH.Qy0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> The first two are close but not identical, since "ca" is aorist present and makes no claims about "ba" or "pu". ___mi morsi ba'o lenu mi jmive___ I am dead in the aftermath of the event of my being alive ___mi morsi ca lenu mi ba'o jmive___ I am dead at the time of the event of my being in the aftermath of being alive (the English may serve as an example of how I translate these ZAhO tenses to myself, per another post, so as to be consistent between sumti tcita and selbri tense) The second does not exclude the possibility of ___mi morsi pu lenu mi ba'o jmive___ I am dead before the time of the event of my being in the aftermath of being alive The first specifically puts you in the aftermath of that event of being alive. Now ___mi morsi ba lenu mi jmive___ I am dead at a time after the event of my being alive ___mi morsi ca lenu mi ba jmive___ I am dead at the same time as the event of I will be alive clearly don't mean the same thing. I suspect that if you use "pu" as you possibly intended, though: ___mi morsi ca lenu mi pu jmive I am dead at the same time as the event of I was alive is much closer, but still not identical, at least part ially because of the aorist nature of the tenses. lojbab