[lojban-beginners] Re: zvati

["Betsemes" <betsemes@hotmail.com>]

> There is no disagreement about that: bu'u is solely about space.
> Period.
>
Do you agree on this?:
>I consider it
>purely locational too, it's just that I don't accept that something
>that is not there can serve to indicate a location. {bu'u le karce}
>means "at the location of the car", not "at any location the car
>ever was or will be". {bu'u lo nu pu salci} indicates the location
>where a party was held in the past, not a location where, for
>example, at some point in the future, a party will have been held
>in the past.
Until now, I have considered Lojban a language where the definitions are
literal. So if you state that something is locational only, then I will
assume that time has nothing to do with it. But if you say that the involved
things have to be simultaneously at the same place, then it has also to do
with time. If we need to consider that bu'u *must* have to accept an
argument which is simultaneously present with whatever the sentence is
about, then I'll continue to contend that for it to be possible, they must
be present at a certain timeframe so that they could actually be present at
the same location. Think about an appointment. In order for you to meet
someone else, you not just need the location of the appointment; you also
need the date/time of it. That's also the case with events. But if bu'u must
have that time constraint in order to work then I'll accept it. It's just I
don't accept that it is purely location-related, it does have a time
component on it.

Now I have to ask you in which point you disagreed with Jorge about zvati
and what updates must be done. Yes, I'm starting to think that Jorge is
right about zvati too. But that also means that I'll disagree about zvati
being purely locational if bu'u = fi'o se zvati. I'll hold the same
disagreement and frankly speaking, I don't think I'll change my mind in the
near future.