Date:  Fri, 19 Dec 1997 17:52:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712192252.RAA27451@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Carl Burke <cburke@MITRE.ORG>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Carl Burke <cburke@MITRE.ORG>
Subject:      Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1450
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 19 17:52:53 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

At 05:26 PM 12/19/97 GMT+0, And Rosta wrote:
...
>I meant: "_lo nu da zasti_ in modern Lojban, as opposed to ur-Lojban
>of 10 years ago.
>
>lo nu zasti cintinues throughout all time.

Agreed.

...
>> {nu mi jmive} is the period of time during which "I live" is
>> true, treated as an entity;
>
>Or rather, it is the statement that there is such a period of
>time.
>
>More fully, it is {da nu mi jmive}.

OK.

...
>{mi jmive} is an act of asserting that {le du`u mi jmive} is true.
>In most cases, {le du`u mi jmive} is true if and only if it
>is the case that {da nu mi jmive} - i.e. that {le du`u mi jmive}
>is temporally manifest.

I'll go along with that.  At least, I think I do, although I'm not used
to thinking about an object as an assertion about a predication.
Agreed that {da nu X} usually also means that X exists in the universe
of discourse and that {le du'u X} is therefore true within {da nu X}.
{da nu X} isn't necessarily true NOW; {da nu mi citka}, for example,
most recently includes today's lunch hour, but {mi citka} is not true
at this moment.  Or, if I'm understanding this correctly, it's
{le du'u mi citka} which is not true right now because there is no
{mi citka} currently in the universe (just past and future instances).

I still stick with {lenu}/{lonu} referring to an instance of the tense
of a bridi rather than instances of the bridi itself, but it can be
hellish to separate them.

--
Carl Burke
cburke@mitre.org