Re: [lojban] Logical translation request

["Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> la adam cusku di'e
>
> > >   caku le se zukte pu simlu le ka lojdra
> >
> >Just so that we can understand you, do you intend to use 'caku',
> >'ni'aku', etc. with the meaning 'ca da', 'ni'a da', etc.,
>
> {ca zo'e}, {ni'a zo'e}, etc, yes.
>
> >instead of
> >'now', 'under me', etc.?
>
> Why instead? {ca zo'e} very often will correspond to 'now',
> but in this case it couldn't, as the whole bridi is set in
> the past! It can only be "then", or "the 'now' of that time",
> if you prefer.

Well, ch. 10, section 2 says (talking about "va"), "What is this event
at a medium distance from? The speaker's location.", in addition to
similar hints all over that chapter. The default of all tenses is the
speaker, normally you need 'ki' to change that, and only BAI, really,
has a default of "zo'e".

I've sometimes wanted to change the interpretation to how you do it,
but need to be able to say "now", etc. is too important. It would take
a complete reworking of the tenses to really get it good. For now I
think we have to use "ca zo'e" for "then".

I suppose it's a question of interpretation of sentences like "ca le
nu mi penmi do kei mi pu klama le zarci". English would interpret it
as "When I met you, I went to the store." (i.e., the two events are
coincident in time). Maybe Lojban should interpret the "ca" as
redefining the reference-point, and thus the sentence should be "When
I met/will meet you, I had gone/will have gone to the store." But
then, how would you get the first interpretation back? (that they're
coincident in time, and they take place in the past.)

> >It might be a good change, but it's
> >counter-baseline.
>
> I don't think so. I hope that the baseline doesn't say that
> {caku} always means 'now'. It couldn't always work, as in
> this example.

Well, you can always say "ca zo'e" otherwise.

mu'o mi'e .adam.