Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qybgk-00006hC; Sat, 22 Oct 94 10:20 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0652; Sat, 22 Oct 94 10:20:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0649; Sat, 22 Oct 1994 10:20:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7120; Sat, 22 Oct 1994 09:17:39 +0100 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 20:29:33 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: mi na nu'o catra ko'a X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1826 Lines: 34 It's my understanding that when we say "mi catra ko'a", the tense is left vague or to context, so it could in fact mean only "mi nu'o catra ko'a" -- which could be an interesting way to refute an earlier confession in a lojbanic court! Do I have this right? It's a little weird, but necessary so that "mi catra" can mean "I'm a killer", even if I haven't killed anyone yet, and never get around to killing anyone. Even worse, suppose I claimed "mi na catra ko'a" -- could that be interpreted in some circumstances as "mi na nu'o catra ko'a"? Since "nu'o" means "can but has not", does the "na" deny that the action was innately possible, or that it didn't in fact happen? Or are both claims made by "nu'o", so we have to use De Morgan's law ( NOT(A AND B) => NOT A OR NOT B ) to figure out what's going on: mi na nu'o catra => mi na (na ca'a je ka'e) catra => mi (ca'a ja na ka'e) catra => mi ca'a catra .ijanai mi ka'e catra "If I was capable of it, then I killed him" Easier to understand in the future tense: "I'll kill him if I can". Given my train of reasoning, this is a possible interpretation of "mi na catra ko'a", just as much as "I will kill him" or "I was about to kill him", right? (BTW I'm not arguing against this, but if my interpretation is correct, I'm warning that it's a weird area to be careful in. If this is logical-but-counterintuitive and hard for English speakers to grasp, but fluent Lojbanis manage to figure it out, lojban will have demonstrated something very interesting, IMHO) Well, I've convinced myself of this, so I guess I don't have a question anymore, except "is this right and/or intelligible?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~