Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 15:45:18 EDT

In a message dated 00-07-01 11:07:58 EDT, xorxes writes:

<< think {na} is unintuitive enough as it is with regard to
its scope over preceding arguments. If we add that it has to
have scope over preceding tenses within the selbri tcita it
becomes completely weird, and also we'd be removing the
capability for a very useful distinction. >>

If you think it is bad now, you should have seen (or should now recall) what 
it was like before the present rule was firmly in place (the last time it was 
debated). Then you had, for example, to do all QN/DeMorgan moves to do {se} 
conversions and half the time you ended up denying something that no one had 
mentioned at all. The present system at least behaves a lot like (but not 
quite) English and other familiar languages.

As a result of thinking about opposites, under xorxes prodding, I do see that 
there needs to be a way to distinguish between at least "it is not the case 
the he keeps on going" and "he keeps on not going." The positional one seems 
natural and is grammatical, but is going to take some rewriting or expanding 
on some crucial parts of the Book, which is the baseline on these matters. 
Are there other possibilities?

<< I think the rule should be that you have to move the whole
thing from the left of the prenex to the left of the
prepredicate or back. And if you only move a part from the
prenex it has to be from the right end of the complex, and
if you only move part from the prepredicate, it has to be
from the left end. This seems like the natural generalization
to the rule that the Book gives for {na} only.>>

The first part looks OK, but I don't see the "only left" and "only right" as 
being generalizations from the Book. I guess I can work out a kind of 
rationale in terms of not doing any further QN/DeMorgan's, but that will ony 
work if there are further specifications of where moved pieces go in relation 
to what is in place -- else we can rearrange without adjustments byt careful 
moves.

<< > mi na roroi klama le zarci
> = naku roroiku zo'u mi klama le zarci
> = su'oroiku naku zo'u mi klama le zarci
> = mi su'oroi na klama le zarci

la pycyn cusku di'e

>Still, it does not appear, on a fairly careful reading, the
>{su'oroi naku zo'u} can be moved back to the prepredicate position.

It would be strange that you could go from the first to the
second line but not back from the second to the first line.>>

That is not the problem, which is going from first to second to third to 
{su'oroi zo'u mi na klama le zarci} to {naku su'oroi zo'u mo klama le zarci} 
. Well, the problem talked about above was whether the whole prefix, now 
that {naku} is not in front, could be moved back. And the Book just does not 
seem to consider the matter, though it might be inferable from, say, the 
treatment of sumti in prenex. 

<< But isn't {co'u} used for any stop, before, at, or after a
natural end point? If {co'u} does have the implication of
"before the natural end point" then {ba'oco'u} works for
the "no longer" period (since {co'u} by itself is just for
the stopping point, not for the following period). But I think
{co'u} is not so specific.>>

Well, yes and no. There is nothing about natural end points in the 
definition and for things other than processes we can argue (and often do) 
that they have not natural ends. But we can and do use {mo'u} -- and even 
{co'i} with states, say (the distinction is not a formal Lojban one) -- and 
in that context, {co'u} contrasts with {mo'u} about natural end points, just 
as it does with {de'a} about the plan to start up again (intentions will worm 
into these things one way or another). Surely no one would use {co'u} of a 
process when {mo'u} fit. And besides, it looks like we can use the 
distinction for some fruitful purpose (let JCB's ghost come up with a 
scientific rationale later -- he always did if the thing worked). 

But I think that "no longer" does not fit {ba'oco'u} well, since the English 
does not imply that he quit early, merely that he is out of the habit -- or 
maybe just doesn't do it any more. I am even unsure about the {ba'o} part -- 
is this really an aftermath or is it just being after? What lingers of the 
original? 

{co'u na} is awfully tempting for the "already" of premature action, though, 
the mirror of {za'o}. Or something like it to fit into whatever we have to 
do with even more internal negations. In terms of sumtitcita to mark the 
pivotal expectations, it would be nice if these mirrors could be reduced to 
something that could be so used. 

<<>"start well after the natural starting point" ("not going at the natural
>starting point" =? keeps on not going after natural time to go?)

I would make a distinction between those two. "start well after"
would be "finally" or "at last". What you have in brackets is
"not yet". "Finally" is what comes after "not yet": {ba'o za'o na},
"the aftermath of the over not".>>

Yes, the "well" was a misplaced rhetorical flourish that obscured the issue. 
This "not yet" = "still not," which is clearer as things are developing, 
though it does seem to be creeping toward "finally". "At last/finally" is 
combines the fact of getting under way with the notion of delay, so I think 
it needs to include {co'a} or, given the negatives in the ongoing part, 
{mo'u/co'u}. Can these critters get joined by jeks?

What is the other "already/still" contrast?