Message-Id: <199510030034.UAA01699@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 2 Oct 1995 20:07:45 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: tense conversions
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

> But what does it mean then, if it doesn't talk about the future?  Does "pu'o
> broda" mean "a situation in which a human observer would predict that {ba
> broda}"?

Something like that, yes. After all, the truth of any claim has to be
determined by a human observer. How do you know if a claim with {mo'u}
is true or not, other than by the judgement of a human observer? When
is an event truly and well finished? Or how can you tell when a claim
with {bredi} is true? If A is ready to do B, but never does it, does
that mean that A wasn't really ready?

> Suppose we both see Cyril leaping for the falling ball, and I,
> being a juggler, think he'll catch it, and you, being a physicist, think he
> won't. :-)

In that case, he probably will catch it, since being a physicist doesn't
really prepare me for making such calls on the fly. I would trust your
instincts more than mine. :)

> I'll say {pu'o se kavbu} and you'll say {pu'o farlu}.  Are both
> statements correct?

Yes, just like if I say {le bolci cu sutra} and you say {le bolci
cu masno} both statements would be correct, in our respective opinions.
It is hard to say whether the statements are true or not. Just because
each of us believes what he is saying doesn't make it true, but what
happens in the future should not really be the deciding factor to know
whether a claim about the present is true.

> If so, then maybe {ca pu'o} really has to mean {ka'e ba
> co'a}!

It's not really exactly that either. Lot's of things could happen that
nobody would say they are about to happen.

> (Of course if it's still considered true that any unmarked selbri is vague
> as to ka'e vs. ca'a, then we may both be right. )

It probably is still considered to be true, although not by me. :)

Jorge