DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=beta;        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;        b=eyWXvez8UlqSqDpK8F6sqCpjmD5QINK8zwLc3BwYAaBPD+jH5chMGIKC/lkLEhgbBPoM/r3v3x9hHOfNClUYEp+iDq/tBfagzaXXezZK8AxxfKPx36JcjQrzihS+wO2goGzvPChY1EjvSrpEE53QBIQT4M6xT4LdmOi00M03TC0=
Message-ID: <23dc8c770703190917g1adbc70cqf1edb7cb8435a8aa@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:17:54 +0000
From: "Karl Naylor" <karl.org@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Debug my propaganda?
In-Reply-To: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7C37@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <23dc8c770703190827r72c5680avf202a813a24f0e4f@mail.gmail.com>	 <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7C37@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 2381

On 19/03/07, Turniansky, Michael <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:

> (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

Rather, at all times it is untrue.  Because...

> 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

I disagree that the time of utterance makes a difference if we're
assuming that the interval is {ze'eca} (which was my mistake at the
time).  But my disagreement is on intuitive philosophical grounds, and
not based on anything I've read about Lojban.  I don't recall seeing
anything in the Reference Grammar to clear up this point; can anybody
clarify this?  It seems to be an important point regarding
interpretation of tenses, if one not likely to matter in general
conversation between humans.

> 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.

I would have no problem with "mi verba" from an adult.  But in this
case no claim has been made about the length of time for which this
applies.

To look at this from another perspective: I have never studied German,
but it could be true for me to say, now, "mi [su'oroi ze'eca] tadni la
dotyban.", because it may yet happen.  Of course, it could also be
false, because I may not.  We don't know yet, but the statement is
still either true or untrue regardless of whether or not we know.
You, I think, would claim that until I actually do study German, the
statement is simply false.  This is the point at which our opinions
diverge, I believe.  But consider: if this example is false, then so
must be "mi pu'o klama le zarci" and many similar claims.

Of course, since I have no good grounds to believe the above statement
true, I wouldn't actually claim it :)  And this is why I don't want to
say that (in all of time) I study Lojban for 14 weeks, if you see my
point.

>   No, it's because once again you're forgetting that "nu..." is a
> selbri.  "nu....jeftu" becomes a tanru.  (A me-having-studied-lojban

Ah yes.  I must start noticing these things.  ki'e gejyspa