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 m0rCvov-00007FC; Wed, 30 Nov 94 22:40 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5914; Wed, 30 Nov 94 22:40:20 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5911; Wed, 30 Nov 1994 22:40:17 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4160; Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:36:52 +0100 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 15:22:31 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: solutions to sumti opacity X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1128 Lines: 29 > 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