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

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

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:31 AM, nam <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Montag 26 Mai 2008 18:17:55 schrieb Michael Turniansky:
>>     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.
>
> So, would it be valid so sum up: If {.i broda ba lo nu brode} is given,
> {broda} happens iff {brode} happens?
>

  Well, no, some instance of broda might happen regardless whether or
not brode happens.  But at least one instance does happen some time
after brode happens. Of course, if we are currently situated in time
between those two incidents, broda hasn't happened yet.  (For example,
a 12-year-old who says, "I am eligible to vote in a national election
after being learning my ABC's" is certainly making a true statement,
and "brode" has occurred, but "broda" hasn't yet.)

   Bottom line, that's why context is still important in lojban as in
any natural language.  Yes, we CAN add enough cmavo, qualifying
clauses, etc. to remove almost all ambiguity, but ultimately, there
are still some baseline assumptions to be made, and in most cases the
"natural" meaning would in fact be the intended one, so we can still
speak simply.


                  --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.