From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed Nov 30 19:15:49 1994
Message-Id: <199412010015.AA08494@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Wed Nov 30 19:15:49 1994
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: solutions to sumti opacity
Status: RO

> UC>Suppose I want to describe things from your point of view and say
> UC>"you were going to a shop, but when you got there you found it had
> UC>never existed". I can't translate this by "do klama lo zarci".
>
> It is indeed, unless you want to eliminate the future tense.  Since we are
> not omniscient, especially about the future, any statement asbout the future
> is either "subjective" or "intentional".

I thought {ba} was objective. If I say {mi ba klama} and I never go, then
the statement was (is) false. If it is an intentional statement then it
should be {ai mi ba klama}, if it is subjective, then for instance {mi capu'o
klama}, which doesn't claim anything about the future.

Making {ba} objective doesn't mean eliminating the future tense. It means that
statements with {ba} are predictions. If they don't eventually realize, then
those predictions were false.

> The narrator may not know what is
> going to happen either, especially in serials where the sequel has not yet
 been
> written %^).

Then he shouldn't make a claim with {ba}. Maybe he should use {cumki} or
something like that.

>
> lojbab

Jorge