Return-Path: <@segate.sunet.se:LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@BITMAIL.LSOFT.COM> Received: from segate.sunet.se by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0szsqc-0000ZSC; Mon, 2 Oct 95 23:56 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by segate.sunet.se (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id C64D8687 ; Mon, 2 Oct 1995 22:56:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:41:13 -0700 Reply-To: "Peter L. Schuerman" Sender: Lojban list From: "Peter L. Schuerman" Subject: future tense X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1114 Lines: 31 coi All this talk about future tenses has gotten me thinking about whether it's desirable to *have* a future tense. Or rather, about whether it's desirable to *use* the future tense. I like the idea of having the ability to talk about future events, because it gives symmetry to the time tenses which is aesthetically pleasing, and also because it allows you to talk about the future of past events, the outcomes of which are known. But shouldn't there be an alternative way to express unknown future events? Here's a stab at it: create a gismu (xxxxx) for which x1 = person predicting a future event x2 = prediction (event) x3 = criteria/evidence supporting prediction x4 = time-location of predicted event mi cu xxxxx le nu mi klama le zarci or simply xxxxx le nu mi klama le zarci meaning "I will go to the store" (literally: I predict that I will go to the store in the future.) This seems like a better reflection of the natural world to me. The current lojban future tense could be retained for use in prophetic utterances. :) co'o mi'e pitr. plschuerman@ucdavis.edu