Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HTK6k-0006I3-66 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:49:14 -0700 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HTK6a-0006Hu-Bf for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:49:13 -0700 Received: from 0015-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.21] [149.8.64.21]) by mclmx.mail.saic.com for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:48:55 -0400 Received: from 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com ([10.43.229.18]) by 0015-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (SMSSMTP 4.0.5.66) with SMTP id M2007031910485532191 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:48:55 -0500 Received: from 0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com ([10.75.0.188]) by 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:48:55 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Debug my propaganda? Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:48:55 -0400 Message-Id: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7C37@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> In-Reply-To: <23dc8c770703190827r72c5680avf202a813a24f0e4f@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lojban-beginners] Re: Debug my propaganda? Thread-Index: AcdqO2yKOmzG4ORGQz+5NApFMoK9CwAAIfeg From: "Turniansky, Michael" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2007 15:48:55.0742 (UTC) FILETIME=[19D785E0:01C76A3E] X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 4176 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 2703 > -----Original Message----- > From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners- > bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Karl Naylor > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:27 AM > To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org > Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Debug my propaganda? > > On 19/03/07, Turniansky, Michael wrote: > > > So you are implying that you can never say (or write) "lo bratu ca > > carvi" (It's snowing) because at some point in time or space that > > statement is not true? Nonsense... > > Not at all. I'm not sure how you inferred that from what I said. If > anything, I think I was saying the opposite: that "lo bratu cu carvi" > is always true, because this has happened many times, is probably > happening somewhere right now and probably will happen again, and I > could be referring to any of those times/places. (please note I said "ca" not "cu". Of course "lo bratu cu carvi" is true, because snow does precipitate. My point was that you rejected (in your earlier understanding) "lenu mi tadni la lojban cu jeftu li pavo" because at some point it would not be true all the time. And maybe you are correct, because of "cu", but I don't believe so. I believe it can still be taken be true as of the time of utterance. Similarly if my son were to make the statement "mi verba" that would be true, even though it was not true 20 years ago, and will not be true 20 years from now. > > By a similar token, I figure that (still assuming that my studying > eventually lasts 6 months) "lonu mi tadni cu masti li xa" is always > true, no matter when you say it. And this was the reason for me > thinking that "lonu mi tadni cu jeftu li pavo" would be false; because > the event actually lasts six months, independent of what time the > statement is made. However, I've now changed my mind because I > believe that there's an elided interval {ze'epu} in that statement, > which does take account of the speaker's temporal location. > > > > lenu mi ze'epu tadni la lojban. jeftu li pavo > > (You are missing a "cu" (or other sumti/selbri separator) before the > > jeftu, but otherwise, yes) > > Hmm, thought I'd be OK without any separator here because {tadni} has > already appeared and swallowed up {la lojban.}; therefore {jeftu} > cannot be the selbri of {la lojban.}, so it must be the selbri of > {lenu}. Or is this ambiguous because {la lojban.} could be the x2 of > {jeftu}? No, it's because once again you're forgetting that "nu..." is a selbri. "nu....jeftu" becomes a tanru. (A me-having-studied-lojban type of weeks). Therefore you have two sumtis ("le nu...jeftu" and "li pavo"), and no selbris. --gejyspa