From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Dec 15 18:25:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 16 Dec 2001 02:25:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 29970 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2001 02:25:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Dec 2001 02:25:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.68) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2001 02:25:30 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:25:30 -0800 Received: from 200.69.14.21 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 02:25:30 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 02:25:30 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2001 02:25:30.0545 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE97F210:01C185D8] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.14.21] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la adam cusku di'e >I've sometimes wanted to change the interpretation to how you do it, >but need to be able to say "now", etc. is too important. I guess that's why {nau} was introduced, though nobody seems to be using it. >I suppose it's a question of interpretation of sentences like "ca le >nu mi penmi do kei mi pu klama le zarci". English would interpret it >as "When I met you, I went to the store." (i.e., the two events are >coincident in time). Maybe Lojban should interpret the "ca" as >redefining the reference-point, and thus the sentence should be "When >I met/will meet you, I had gone/will have gone to the store." But >then, how would you get the first interpretation back? (that they're >coincident in time, and they take place in the past.) My understanding is that tenses behave like negation in this respect, so the selbri tcita {pu} is like a {puku} at the start of the bridi: {puku ca le nu mi penmi do kei mi klama le zarci}, which gives the first interpretation. For the other interpretation you'd have to say {ca le nu mi penmi do kei puku mi klama le zarci} I don't think this has ever been explored much. But it can't be very different from that because {na} can mingle with tenses in selbri tcita, and it would be odd if one had bridi scope and the others didn't. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com