Message-Id: <199510022352.TAA00205@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 2 Oct 1995 17:14:44 -0600
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject:      Re: tense conversions
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>la kris cusku di'e
>
>> In other words, I think "le bolci pu'o farlu" means "the ball will start
>> falling", not "the ball is about to fall".
>
>Are you saying that {ca pu'o} means the same as {ba co'a}?

Hmm, yes, I guess what I said would imply that.  Maybe {bazi co'a}

> I don't agree.
>I think the difference between those two is precisely that the first
>describes the present and the second describes the future. For a claim
>about the present to be true, the actual future is irrelevant. For a claim
>about the future to be true, what is claimed must end up happening in
>the future.

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}"?  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. :-)  I'll say {pu'o se kavbu} and you'll say {pu'o farlu}.  Are both
statements correct?  If so, then maybe {ca pu'o} really has to mean {ka'e ba
co'a}!

(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. )