Received: from mail-ie0-f190.google.com ([209.85.223.190]:58460) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VFOuH-0008QQ-JT; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:38:42 -0700 Received: by mail-ie0-f190.google.com with SMTP id e14sf414595iej.17 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:38:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=H5vfoHARmbvx4E5Z1P+Ynnq658z3X5No3kjfrOQ05rY=; b=pJQgiciG2xCN+OvO8ANLfwvvuypqlZoOeAFSO9iTvFeETjApB6+wWQJrCyuteeRtLo 14Kyv6fDrY4Njmk1wyBw62ufyruJnv83ZI8owBKj7Up6hgDyxbqGi8M5/ByjL9w4ZtEb vaZB5iEE8t82QbWsvYYdHDvs5D0gn3Bgt9o6fPv5WzKf3fdTcUCzXVr0jd5SYWPz42Mj L2X8fpJ65i1Nz/EL5Q0sv4bz539xD6ZpCQ6Bf+OO72Q8i1EM19HEZJkV0FhONNVKZYtc j053W65pRxIz2tDP7NR+WoKuPe18+sb9AnvEvtMFbWxt90MkHp6xvCheW09opJ47ITXe pUgg== X-Received: by 10.49.12.47 with SMTP id v15mr2421qeb.39.1377869906741; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:38:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.15.8 with SMTP id t8ls1371898qec.27.gmail; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:38:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.236.156.138 with SMTP id m10mr3149999yhk.26.1377869906307; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmfepo201.cox.net (eastrmfepo201.cox.net. [68.230.241.216]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id en4si5254211qcb.2.1969.12.31.16.00.00; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.216; Received: from eastrmimpo209 ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo201.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.09 201-2260-151-124-20120717) with ESMTP id <20130830133825.VMHB3846.eastrmfepo201.cox.net@eastrmimpo209> for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:38:25 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([72.209.248.61]) by eastrmimpo209 with cox id K1eR1m0021LDWBL011eRDr; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:38:25 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020203.5220A051.034E,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=EOnYJSlC c=1 sm=1 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:17 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=hWK_rWBi-gQA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=Y9VrFeFo6moA:10 a=jK3bGrtaAAAA:8 a=8pif782wAAAA:8 a=TVaovhy68aUZdnsjFWcA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=z9jnGXjs1dxvEuWvIXKNSw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <5220A04F.1070603@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:38:23 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com, John E Clifford Subject: Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i} References: In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / la gleki wrote: > 1. > > ba'o is currently defined (according to CLL > ) as > > ba'o ZAhO perfective > > > If we are to use normal linguistic terminology then this is wrong. > > {ba'o} is perfect, not perfective - those are completely different things. > According to Wikipedia it's > better to avoid using the term "perfect" and change to "retrospective". > > So I propose changing the definition of ba'o to > > ba'o ZAhO retrospective > > > > 2. > > As for "perfective" it looks like it's expressed using {co'i}. > Another independent proposal is that co'i should be defined as > > co'i ZAhO perfective/achievative > > > "perfective" is used quite extensively when describing Chinese and > Russian grammar so normalising terminology is a must pe'i. > > Neither proposal changes anything in Lojban itself, only in translation. I don't necessarily have a problem with such a change (especially since I've been an incompetent student of Russian for 20+ years now), but would like pc's input. IIRC, the terminology came from his exposition to me of tense logic's terminology used for Aristotelian events, and pc was at the time a specialist in tense logic. The "perfective" term, IIRC, was consistent with the "superfective" term (za'o itself), for which I don't know any other linguistic equivalent. So the choice may be between using linguistic terminology or tense logic terminology. I've cc'd this message to pc to make sure that he sees it. lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.