Message-Id: <m0t2u97-0000ZWC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 10 Oct 1995 23:33:32 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: tenses
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2889
Lines: 75

And:
> IAd have thought {ca puo broda} means "now is the run-up to brodaing",
> but my cmaste has {capuo}="has been", so IAm a bit confused on this
> one.

The cmaste has {capu'o} and {bapu'o} backwards.

Actually, it has them as they should be defined but not as they are
defined.

> I agree iff {puo} modifies the selbri, so that the meaning is
> "puo-farlu(le bolci)", and not "farlu(le bloci)" - so that
> puo-farlu(b) does not entail farlu(b).

That's how I understand it, yes. You can talk of {lo pu'o farlu},
which is not a kind of {lo farlu}, so it makes sense.

> {coa citka pa plise} entails that there is an apple and that this
> apple is eaten.

Only that it starts to be eaten, I think.

> Assuming {citka} means "consume", {cou citka pa plise} must mean
> {mou citka pa plise}.

What's an example of {co'u broda} that doesn't mean {mo'u broda} then?

> To Jorge & Lojbab: Imagine a church-facade with no church behind it.
> In English, you can say "that is facade of a church", but in Lojban
> you couldn;t say "ta flira lo malsi", because that says there is a
> church such that that is its facade. You'd have to say {ta flira
> lo dahi malsi}.

I agree, but this has nothing to do with tenses. I am not saying
"this is the start of an event of my eating an apple". I only
say "I start eating an apple". There is an apple, there is me, and
the relationship between those two is that one starts to eat the
other.

> Now, imagine the act of counting to ten, {nu kacporsi li pano}.
> If {nu kacporsi li pano} then it must also be that {nu coa kacporsi
> li pano} and {nu mou kacporsi li pano} and {nu cou kacporsi li
> pano}.

Depends what you mean by the tensless claim. But even if that is true,
the inverse doesn't hold. If {nu co'a porkancu li pano} then not
necessarily {nu mo'u porkancu li pano}.

> If you start counting but stop at two, then this can be
> described as {nu coa kacporsi li re} or {nu coa nu dahi kacporsi li
> pano} or {nu coa nu dahi kacporsi li vovovovovovo}, with the last
> two pragmatically implying that the counter's intention was to
> get to 10 and 444444 respectively. But if you stop at two, it is
> not the case that there is an event of you counting to ten. Since
> there is no such event, you cannot describe its start - you
> cannot say {coa kacporsi li pano}.

I disagree. It is the event of starting to count that you are describing,
not necessarily the start of a complete event of counting.

Otherwise, how do you explain {za'o} for example?

Saying that an event starts in no way commits you to saying that
it will ever be completed, nor that it will ever stop, nor that it
won't go on beyond its natural endpoint, etc.

> ---
> And
> p.s. RE: Chris on {dahi} & {rua}: I agree with everything Kris says,
> & retract anything necessary.

Was this a post to the whole list? I don't remember reading anything
that fits with that.

Jorge