Re: [lojban] Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives

[Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@MATH.BAS.BG>]

Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la jimc cusku di'e
> >"Add a can of (our product) to your car's gasoline and /it/ will
> >do wonders for your engine."  "It" was formerly in the can, but
> >while it's doing wonders for your engine, which takes several
> >days, it's outside.
> 
> When it is true that it will do wonders, it is still in the can,
> so there is no problem there.
[...]
> >A pedant would say: "...and the former can contents will do wonders..."
> 
> But wouldn't the pedant be wrong? It is the current contents
> that will do wonders, even if they will no longer be contained
> by the can while doing the wonders. "Will" refers to "do wonders",
> not to the description of the object. That's certainly how
> I understand it in Lojban, and also I'm quite sure in English.

I think `will' can refer to the description of the object, though
it doesn't have to.  Neither `and the contents of the can will do
wonders' (describing what is in the can now, though it won't be
then) nor `the contents of the tank will do wonders' (describing
what will be in the tank then, though it isn't now) sounds wrong
to me.  Contrariwise, `the former contents of the can' and `the
future contents of the tank' do, being too pedantic and awkward.

`I grew up in a small town' most likely means that it was a small
town when the speaker was growing up, whether or not it is one now
(though there is nothing wrong with clarifying `what was then' or
`what is now' as appropriate).

`Arthur was king at Camelot' is fine with or without `what was
then called'; `Arthur was king at Winchester' seems to require
`what is now called'.  (Disregard historical accuracy; my goal
is to illustrate a linguistic point.)

--Ivan