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

[Roman Naumann <roman_naumann@fastmail.fm>]

Am Dienstag 27 Mai 2008 16:47:18 schrieb Michael Turniansky:
> > Given: {.i broda ba lo nu brode}
> > Then:  {.i broda .inaja brode}
>  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.)).

I agree mostly; in the beginning, I was thinking about claiming {.i le nu 
broda cu fasnu .inaja le nu brode cu fasnu}, but that would limit the claim 
to particular _events_, although particular states and other abstractions 
would be fine as well.

So the claim should go for anything _particular_ (le), not only particular 
events.

Thanks for the explanation, I think I (maybe as good as) fully understand the 
implicit claims of temporally related clauses now, - or can figure them out 
given some time. (for the other cmavo of selma'o pu)
-- 
mu'o mi'e nam


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.