From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sun Feb 28 06:39:19 1999 X-Digest-Num: 80 Message-ID: <44114.80.488.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:39:19 -0300 From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" By the text and examples on pg 216, 13.5) on pg 234 is equivalent to >puku mi baku klama le zarci. Example 13.5) suggests that, I agree. >Introducing zu or co'a or co'u should not change how this works, I agree about {zu}, but introducing {co'u} does necessarily change how it works, because {puco'uba} is not a permissible Lojban tense. > though the >backwardsness of some of the tense/modals when used as sumti tcita might >cause them to need to be reversed in some cases. This is certainly a problem, but I think it doesn't affect this discussion. I suppose that {mi ba'oku klama le zarci} is the same as {mi ba'o klama le zarci} and not {mi ba'o zo'e klama le zarci}, right? >"Noncompoundable" is a grammatical issue arising solely from what John had >to do to make the grammar work under YACC and stay simple. That surely must be wrong. The simplest grammar would have been to make all tense cmavo part of the same selmaho and allow any and all combinations. That would certainly work under YACC. If the complex tense grammar has any reason of being is precisely to _prevent_ some combinations from happening. > I think it has >been clearly stated on the List, if not explicitly in the Book, that two >adjacent "noncompoundable" or "compoundable" for that matter tenses should >be treated as if they were compounded. That doesn't make sense. If they're noncompoundable they can't be treated as if they were compounded, by definition. > I am only unsure whether this was >stated for particular kinds of noncompoundables or as a general case. I don't remember it ever being discussed. Maybe it was before my joining the list. >>>>{puco'aku baco'uku} > >Take an imaginary journey to the past and we have an initiation of an event. >That event is the future (relative to the pu offset already stated) >conclusion of X. I'm afraid I can't make sense of that. Let's make it more concrete. Let's say I have been painting my house, and painting the door will be the conclusion of the larger event of painting the whole house. Then I might say: mi pu co'a co'u cintypu'i le zdani ca le cerni I started the conclusion of painting the house this morning. meaning that I started to paint that last door this morning. What could the additional {ba} possibly mean? That the painting of the door was in the future of its start? How could it be in the future, since it has to start there? Does it mean that a part of it was in the future? And to make it more confusing still, what about something like {puco'aku puco'uku}? Starting of the conclusion that happened earlier? >It is not clear whether or not that conclusion is in the past or future of >the space time reference. puzuco'aku bazico'uku would be in the past of >the reference whereas puzico'aku bazuco'uku would be inthe future of the >reference. In any case, the conclusion would have to start in the past, wouldn't it? >>I don't see the need to force it when you have not >>one compond tense but several distinct tenses. > >I'm not sure if any other interpretation makes sense, so I don't see how it >is "forced". Certainly not an implicit logical connective, since that can >so easily be made explicit with a multiple compound tense. Certainly not. I explained in my first answer why logical connection is different. For example: {mi pu je ba citka lo plise} means that I ate an apple in the past, and I will eat an apple in the future. Probably not the same one. {mi puku baku citka lo plise} would mean that my eating an apple was taking place in the past and will be taking place in the future, the same event, and thus the same at least one apple. > It's just >carrying a logical pattern to a rather extreme conclusion that probably >will never be useful (but pc could probably come up with an example if Nora >or John couldn't). I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. An example of what? >>And {puku baku}, in my interpretation, does not describe an interval. >>It describes only two time points. > >If they are two time points relative to the reference, then that would be >puku pe'eje baku or pujebaku. See above why logical connection not always works. > A single bridi does not describe two events >unless you have a roi tense or a logical connective. That's exactly my point. I'm not describing two events. >If you are describing >a set of points for an intermittent event, you should use something like >nonlogical connective ce or joi Not necessarily intermitent. I just choose to mention those particular points. Just as when you say {mi ba klama le zarci} you are not denying that the event might already be going on, when you give two points you'd not be saying anything about the rest of the time. co'o mi'e xorxes