From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Oct 1 16:09:05 1995 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id QAA06864 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 16:09:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199510012009.QAA06864@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id AE641F32 ; Sun, 1 Oct 1995 15:47:31 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 22:46:42 +0300 Reply-To: Cyril Slobin Sender: Lojban list From: Cyril Slobin Organization: Institute for Commercial Engineering Subject: Re: tense conversions To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199510011735.UAA17586@feast.fe.msk.ru>; from "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at Sun, 1 Oct 1995 12:16:30 EDT Status: OR coi > But I agree that intention doesn't have much to do with it either. Neither > the ball had intentions of falling, nor the floor of being fallen to, nor > the table of being fallen from. Indeed, unless there is a person subject, > it doesn't really make much sense to talk about intentions. It seems to me that problem is not in lojban inchoative, but in _any_ kind of future tense in _any_ language that have them. We usually know more or less definitely about past and present events, and almost nothing about future. What do you claim when you say "I will go to market"? How do you can to know that? What do you really know is your intention, or physic laws, or probability - but not the event itself. So "pure" future tense seems a bit strange... And it's not a lojban specific problem. co'o mi'e kir. -- Cyril Slobin `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, `it means just what I choose it to mean'