[lojban-beginners] Re: Debug my propaganda?

["Turniansky, Michael" <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com>]

> >> (elided) now is 14 weeks.
> 
> >    Ah, so now I see what's troubling you.  I don't believe it will,
> > since we are talking about the state of the fact here-and-now.  But
if it
> 
> I'm not convinced that it makes a difference when I say the sentence;
> the event I'm describing exists independently of the location (in
> space-time) of the observer.  Say that in the end, it turns out I
> study for 6 months.  Then the event of studying has 6 months duration,
> whether observed from before, during or after the event itself
> (although of course we can't observe its true length until it's over).

  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...

>  Although I did say {le nu}, not {lo nu}, so I'm not bound to be
> entirely accurate when describing it.  .u'asai
> 
> .ua what about adding a {ze'epu}?  Like this:
> 
> 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)


> 
> That way, the event I'm describing as having 14 weeks duration is
> restricted to the portion of the timeline preceding the here-and-now,
> so it's still true even if I continue to study in the future.  And
> actually, I guess I could just elide the {ze'epu}, as long as I don't
> specify any other interval. 

  Yes, that's the point.  It might at the very base be ambiguous if you
want to split hairs fine enough, but context lets us understand what is
meant (I guess that means I'm in the naturalist camp of lojban)

> So yes, I now agree with your sentence,
> Michael, although I've been round the houses a bit to get to that
> point (zo'o).
> 
> I shall have to remember this result, it could save me a lot of
> trouble in the future...
> 
              --gejyspa