From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412052128.AA12965@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: solutions to sumti opacity Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 16:28:12 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) In-Reply-To: <199411291358.AA24487@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Nov 29, 94 08:58:18 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1058 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 5 16:28:17 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la .and. cusku di'e > > Suppose I want to describe things from your point of view and say > > "you were going to a shop, but when you got there you found it had > > never existed". I can't translate this by "do klama lo zarci". la lojbab. cusku di'e > 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". The narrator may not know what is > going to happen either, especially in serials where the sequel has not yet been > written %^). I think And is correct here, and lojbab is wrong. Statements with "ba" are predictions; "do ba klama lo zarci" means "there is (timelessly) a store such that you will go to it (in my future)". If you don't go to a store, I was simply wrong. If I want to say "You are going to a store" irrealis, I need "sisku" and some kind of abstraction, either full-scale "ka" or "tu'a". -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.