[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: logical issues (lambda,ka, man-dogs, etc.)

>la djan cusku di'e
>> Poof.  In fact, "mi se cmene zo xorxes" became true only when you joined
>> the Lojban community.
>So {la xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa} is false?

I have my own off-line answer about to be posted, but I'll comment on this
one also.

The answer is "no" because of the vagaries of tense in the combined languages.

At the time la xorxes jbena, he was not se cmene zo xorxes.  So John's
statement is correct that "mi se cmene zo xorxes" became true only when
you joined the Lojban community.  before then,it was either false, or
had to rely on a meaningless potential tense or on miraculous foresight
in order that a person could truthfully say it at the time you were born.

However in "la xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa" we still have the space time
 reference in the present, and you resolve "la xorxes" to the referent, and then
you observe that indeed that referent of "zo xorxes" was born in the indicated
year (I presume %^).  So it is true now.  If spoken in 1967, it would have
been undefined truth value, since the reference "la xorxes" was almost
certainly unresolvable in 1967.  I guess if a Lojbanist time traveller
went back then, they could say
"la poi ba se cmene ku'o xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa"

BTW, I now observe that in attempting to use forethought relative clauses
in names, as I just did, I had trouble figuring out what the implied "ke'a"
would refer to.  This may be a problem with all "inner" relative clauses,
but shows up strongly here, because until we put the "la" on "xorxes" we
have no sumti to relativize.  I thus was (and am still) uncertain whether
I wanted "cmene" or "se cmene" in the relative clause.