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

["Michael Turniansky" <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:45 PM, nam <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> 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)
>

    What if it had instead asserted "I eat apples after Hell freezes
over/after pigs fly"?  The whole sentence is still valid, and may even
be true, but that doesn't mean you've eaten any apples at all, yet.
We will have to wait and see....  Remember, the main bridi had no
tense associated with it, so it's simply asserting a fact, not
necessarily one that has come to fruition yet.

         --gejyspa


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.