From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jun 25 10:54:41 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KBZCb-0008T1-B8 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:54:41 -0700 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KBZCW-0008Sk-Fw for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:54:41 -0700 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so1487855fga.0 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:54:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=RHsScdfcJEp2IQ/auMvw2hOW07BIZ6T2YbDGq67tmv4=; b=ELLczNK08QD1OR01Xz38QyS7tesU3JDRvsHTdS8UUHeuOXl/ywNOqljKe4kexY8GKg 2p6Y3CzfZuSjprhEzsHcwQW7sIF0yNxGgXkS46mDHYXc4QX1Rb977BtrYclocIZ0RxR+ 12+VJD4nRecFP1YY8IPDkNZxmAYZUej9cQN6A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=r1dr7rltUbOF3JCYqdQHYnNB54rC+vnXavKn99QNEdh8uE4tsuzRRmAbmpYyw0uV8L u7GP3yc4xkeMtoTlrno4CF6uP4HWt7/WpthRh9hc4yZ28uKYHP1imYlrOu0orZeF2mg3 SAZ0YdTTcg/buHzKNW6RD9oC59DWckznl9Te4= Received: by 10.86.63.19 with SMTP id l19mr10840912fga.77.1214416475194; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.89.11 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560806251054k1c43093do2ae1efa61e0a3db0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:54:35 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: grammar terms In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0806250926h68346ff6u5a07bd6382f6923c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2f91285f0806250334k3c0aa483y8e879dc573e913ad@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560806250716w197d2163oabe93f7b7df9eec@mail.gmail.com> <2f91285f0806250926h68346ff6u5a07bd6382f6923c@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 654 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 6/25/08, Vid Sintef wrote: > > I rather find the word "tense" to be implying a "relation" between > some kind of base points (a thing is "tensed" by other things), which > I think justifies Wikipedia's definition that grammatical tense is > also about "duration", a temporal relation between a beginning point > and an ending point. In this respect, VEhA and ZEhA have the same mode > of specification with FAhA/VA/ZI/PU. But then TAhE and ZAhO would be tenses too. For me the important distinction is that ZEhA/VEhA/TAhE/ZAhO are properties of the described event itself, no matter when/where it happens, whereas PU/ZI/FAhA/VA are about locating the event somewhere/somewhen. Another way of looking at it: If you consider the same situation as described by different speakers, each of them located at different times and places, they will all use the same ZEhA/VEhA/TAhE/ZAhO, but each one will use a different PU/ZI/FAhA/VA tense, depending on where the event is located with respect to them. > > {nau} could also belong in "tense", but the > > other member of CUhE is more general. > > I tend to question the functionality of {cu'e} as long as I attempt to > distinguish tense from modal or aspect. But maybe the distinction > itself is not really so much important in Lojban. At least I would > like to see some systematic grouping of these sumtcita selma'os. Personally, I would rather they were all in the same selmaho, as there is no reason really for them to all have slightly different syntax. Obviously one can establish different semantic groups for different purposes. {cu'e} itself is not very useful, because it is so general that it's impossible to know what it is asking about. It's more likely that one would ask {ca ma}, {bu'u ma}, {ze'a ma}, etc. depending on what one wants to know. > I'm also interested in the Wikipedia article ("Linguistic modality") > discussing "propositional attitudes" as an element of modality, which > may allow some of the Lojban attitudinals to be called "modals" as > well. Yes, especially the so called "irrealis" ones. > > According to jbovlaste, attitudinals in general. UI1 contains several > > indicators that are not about emotions, so it doesn't really make a > > natural "cinmo" class. > > But if some UIs are not about emotions, "cnima'o" wouldn't cover > attitudinals in general. Clearly UI2 and UI3 are not about emotions. > If attitude/attitudinal, not emotion, is the generic idea of the UI > series, we need some alternative to "cnima'o". Well, lujvo are not definitions, so {cnima'o} could be used for a class of words many of which relate to emotions, even if not all of them (probably not even most of them) do. But if we can come up with a more descriptive lujvo, all the better. mu'o mi'e xorxes