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

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

la lojbab mi di'e spuda

> >So {la xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa} is false?
> The answer is "no" because of the vagaries of tense in the combined languages.

What combined languages?

In any case, I knew that was the answer, I'm too prone to rhetorical
questions. But of course I have to disagree with you about why the
answer is "no". :)

> 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.

I don't think statements become true or false with time. The problem
here is that my statement was not explicit as to its tense.

This statement is, was, and forever will be false:

        mi se cmene zo xorxes ca le nu mi jbena
        I am/was/will be named "xorxes" at the time I am/was/will be born.

This statement also is, was, and forever will be false:

        la xorxes se cmene zo xorxes ca le nu xy jbena
        Jorge is/was/will be named "xorxes" at the time he is/was/will be born.

But {la xorxes} has a well defined referent, namely me, and I can make
true statements about me-before-Lojban using the su'ivla {la xorxes}:

        la xorxes cu jbena fi li pasoxaxa
        Jorge is/was/will be born in 1966.

> 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
> you observe that indeed that referent of "zo xorxes" was born in the indicated
> year (I presume %^). So it is true now.

It is true. The same words spoken at some other time are no longer it.

> 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"

They could say:

   le ba se cmene be zo xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa
   The one that will be called "xorxes" was born in 1966.

> 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.

If you had used {poi ke'a se cmene}, then you would have said
"Jorge Future-Name was born in 1966".

What you wrote is "Jorge Future-Named was born in 1966". You made no
reference whatsoever to the name "xorxes", although one might
assume that you meant:

        la poi ba se cmene zo xorxes xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa
        Future-Named-"xorxes" Jorge was born in 1966.

but I don't see why the time travelling lojbanist would want to
call me by such an elaborate name, unless it was to show off the use of
pre-posed {poi} in names. A simple relative clause would make more

        la xorxes noi ba se cmene zo xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa
        Jorge, who will be called "xorxes", was born in 1966.

co'o mi'e xorxes noi su'oroi se cmene zo xorxes