[lojban] Re: Assertions of time-relations and precision of abstractions

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:45 PM, nam <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.)
> Does {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji kei fasnu} assert {lo cevni cu zbasu lo
> munji} to be true?

You want {cu}, or {kei ku}, rather than {kei}.
{nu .... kei} is a tanru unit, {kei} does not terminate a sumti.

As for the question (assuming {cu}), it asserts that {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu
lo munji} is an event, i.e. the kind of thing that happens. It will depend on
the context whether or not you are claiming that it actually did/does/will
happen. You can say {ca'a fasnu} to ensure a claim of it actually happening.

> Or does the abstraction loose precision (in whatever way)?.

Subordinate clauses in general are not claimed to happen, unless of
course the claim happens to be that they actually happen, as with
{ca'a fasnu}.

Even a main clause need not always be used to make an assertion,
although that will be the default understanding.

> (We had the point that {lo nu lo cevni cu zbasu lo munji kei} could also refer
> to the big-bang due to it's abstract nature (while {lo cevni cu zbasu lo
> munji} can't due to it's less abstract nature); does the abstraction really
> loose precision?)

I don't think that makes much sense.


> 2.)
> Which of the following is asserted by {.i broda ba lo nu brode}?
> A.) {.i broda}
> B.) {.i brode}
> C.) {.i lo nu broda cu balvi lo nu brode} [Just the order! Without
> implications of A and B!]

(A) is asserted. An event of brodeing is referred to as a refernce point,
so it is presupposed that it happens, which is not quite the same
thing as making an assertion.

> We had the example of: {.i mi citka lo plise ba lo nu mi citka lo badna}
> Where the question was, if {.i mi citka lo badna} was implicitly stated, since
> the whole bridi wouldn't make sense if it wasn't.
>
> (i.e. It wouldn't make sense to state "I eat one or more apples after my
> eating one or more banana(s)", if "my eating one or more banana(s)" never
> occurred and never will)

That a subordinate clause is not asserted does not of course mean
that it is asserted not to hold. {mi (ca'a) citka lo plise ba ko'a} asserts
that I did/do/will eat apples after ko'a, and the only way for that to be
true is that "ko'a" refers to some event that actually happens, just as
it requires "mi" to refer to an actual person, and "lo plise" to refer to
actual apples.

Given an appropriate context, {mi citka lo plise ba lo nu mi citka
lo badna} could mean "I could eat apples after eating bananas",
which does not require any eating to actually take place for it to
be true.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.