Re: solutions to sumti opacity

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la .and. cusku di'e

> > Suppose I want to describe things from your point of view and say
> > "you were going to a shop, but when you got there you found it had
> > never existed". I can't translate this by "do klama lo zarci".

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> It is indeed, unless you want to eliminate the future tense.  Since we are
> not omniscient, especially about the future, any statement asbout the future
> is either "subjective" or "intentional".  The narrator may not know what is
> going to happen either, especially in serials where the sequel has not yet been
> written %^).

I think And is correct here, and lojbab is wrong.  Statements with "ba" are
predictions; "do ba klama lo zarci" means "there is (timelessly) a store such
that you will go to it (in my future)".  If you don't go to a store, I was
simply wrong.

If I want to say "You are going to a store" irrealis, I need "sisku" and
some kind of abstraction, either full-scale "ka" or "tu'a".

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.