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

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

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:29 AM, nam <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Dienstag 27 Mai 2008 14:31:36 schrieb nam:
>
>> So, would it be valid so sum up: If {.i broda ba lo nu brode} is given,
>> {broda} happens iff {brode} happens?
>
> Sry, that's plain wrong. Don't konw what I was thinking about..
>
> What I wanted to ask is: Would it be fine to say:
>
> Given: {.i broda ba lo nu brode}
> Then:  {.i broda .inaja brode}
> (This doesn't deny 'when hell frezes' [brode], because if NOT brode then NOT
> broda) => (If hell never freezes, I'll never eat the banana or whatever)
> --

 I think that that's fine to say as long as we understand we are
talking about a _particular_ (le) event/events. To say "I (will) shop
after this TV show is over" does not imply that I've never shopped
before (unless we add a "po'o"/"only" to it, or similar device
(pare'u, etc.)).

                --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.