From iad@MATH.BAS.BG Fri Aug 04 05:18:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9114 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2000 12:18:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Aug 2000 12:18:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lnd.internet-bg.net) (212.124.64.2) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2000 12:18:12 -0000 Received: from math.bas.bg (ppp96.internet-bg.net [212.124.66.96]) by lnd.internet-bg.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA25020 for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:27:02 +0300 Message-ID: <398AB43C.E236F869@math.bas.bg> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:17:00 +0300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ivan A Derzhanski 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