From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Jan 26 12:38:25 2000 X-Digest-Num: 345 Message-ID: <44114.345.1850.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:38:25 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: Re: Subjunctives la pycyn cusku di'e >I can't check with the Book right now, but my memory of how the tense and >aspects were intended to work is as follows. >1) tense and aspect are separated (and from mood and the like as well, all >of >which are jumbled together in English and, historically at least, in most >familiar languages) Yes, tense: ca, pu, ba; aspect: ca'o, ba'o, pu'o, etc. >2) tense is based on axis and vector reference, though not restricted to >the >four axes implicit in most natural systems (though never fully realized in >any). What is the fourth axis of natural systems, besides past, present and future? >3) The same cmavo are used for retro vector and past axis, for simultaneous >vector and present axis, and for pro vector and future axis. The >differences >are positional and/or determined by context. Thus, pu might be either past >vector to the current axis or establishing a new axis prior to the current >one. I think this is not the way pu is presented in the Book. If I understand what you are saying (maybe I don't, because I am not at all familiar with that terminology) then the Book says that pu always establishes a new axis prior to the current one. (Except in its function after ZEhAs, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.) >Where the difference is too important to be left to context to decide, >capu would indicate the vector (brief glance back without chaning the focus >of the narrative) and puca the new axis (or maybe it is the other way >'round >-- I ermember this got argued and I forget which one, this seems most >natural >to me at the moment). This is definitely not in the Book. According to the Book, puca, capu and pu by itself are all the same, and they all shift the axis to the past. >4) Only axes are points, so that punctile clauses, like ca..., must apply >to >axes, making bapu ca... unambiguous "event before the future event >indicated >by ca..." >Of course, with a clearly future event, maybe even capu would work. If I understand correctly, you are saying that in bapu ba establishes the axis and pu is a vector, and then the {ca le cerni} clause must indicate the axis. That does not agree with the Book. According to the Book's rules, {ca le cerni} could not indicate a point at the middle of the "imaginary journey" represented by bapu. >5) Aspects carry temporal implications but are not completely temporal. >Thus, the perfective of an event does entail that the event occurred in the >past (though even this can be doubted, since some maintain that the >inchoative does not entail that the event takes place in the future) but >the >converse does not quite follow, for not all past events still throw their >aspectual shadows into the present (effects from causes, continued >existence >of participants, ... -- the list varies in some unclear ways) as the >perfective seems to indicate. Right. Perfective and inchoative are not fully symmetrical, so I don't see a problem with one entailing that the event occurred and the other not entailing that it will occur. >6) So, in Lojban, past axis, retro vector and perfective aspect are all >slightly different and in different ways. But in English they tend to >fall >together, certainly away from present tense, and thus sorting out which one >is meant by a given Englsh sentence is not subject to clear rules, except >that one must think what one means to say, both in the given sentence and >in >those around it. I agree there are no strict rules. All I can say is that I have not found examples where composite tenses (bapu, puba, etc) would be useful. [...] >Talk of possible worlds really brings up a point about my favorite (and >everybody else's least favorite) change, restricted quantification. As >Xorxes points out, "for every possible world w, if I have a million in w, >then I am rich in w" could be true just because there is no possible world >in >which I have a million -- hardly an improvement on the material reading in >this world. On the other hand "in every possible world in which I have a >million, w, I am rich in w" looks only at the worlds in which I have a >muillion -- and says that there are some. Clearly the latter is much >closer >to what is wanted, though even it may not be quite right (Lojban has the >means to do this, but does not use it for this purpose). And it is interesting that this solution: "in every possible world in which I have a million, w, I am rich in w" does not use the logical IF, and is remarkably similar to the {va'o} solution: va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich. In every world where I have a mill., I am rich. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com