From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Feb 25 13:28:40 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NklGB-0008E2-B7 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:28:39 -0800 Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NklG6-0008Be-04 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:28:38 -0800 Received: by vws17 with SMTP id 17so1281965vws.40 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:28:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=V7DW4uwR2hxCuspfL+taQTkZ8UddvqvO/4aIvvRZ6+0=; b=sEMk39DJoLMBkDGSB+pPj7Bt/CZC6/2HcCKT25IQZCi5AmVY+f2LFkelhPTqtKSXcW /bpf4lOiUgsZ0CBBJ2L1AEGj85UuUXiUIsYyDeB7Bn3Iq/syIfOr/kWkYd0zMlImTDrA k+0Vnj9n8RB7l/lfohh9MrfZTVpq3K35vX+sM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=E9yU11l+CPbWgBuKrGxnk3wXwJwFf6OHADCFAZyqcCLJPoboPYrIAXkivs5iqhiK8T xOO3IAD3UmwUUjYkd+xpLoKvxfYQSySW8kEvEHLdq2fPRw9inFhvoLG5E19eE/3fEUsQ J2VEcP0xVKGxdYS8+Z5eu6SS5z9Vk1QuDAJu8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.123.92 with SMTP id o28mr126012vcr.116.1267133303443; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:28:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1f1080831002251318p78bab1dbha716f66a082c0daf@mail.gmail.com> References: <1f1080831002250758rb17bd2dk664e035452c298e4@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561002250954p6d57ef87w3cde7fd92a9fe7d9@mail.gmail.com> <1f1080831002251318p78bab1dbha716f66a082c0daf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:28:23 -0500 Message-ID: <5715b9301002251328o11d2223r12bf275e35e71955@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Tenses in abstractions From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c92b056f670704807376bd X-archive-position: 2907 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --001636c92b056f670704807376bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable would {zi ma do co'a sipna ca lo prulamcte } also be valid? In general how do multiple tense markers work in a bridi? Is it legitimate to say {mi klama lo zarci ca lo cabnanca ca lo cabjeftu ca lo cabdei }? On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Ian Johnson wrote= : > 2010/2/25 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Ian Johnson > wrote: > >> I tried translating "When did you go to sleep last night?" I know > >> about {sumti tcita} for this (ti'u), but I'm not sure if you can use > >> them to fill 3 of tcika's places instead of just 2, so I did: > >> ma lenu do pu co'a sipna cu tcika le prulamcte (be le cabdei) > >> > >> I have four questions: > >> 1. Just in general, is that structured other-than-terribly? > > > > The "pu" is a bit redundant, since "last night" already shows that it > > was in the past. > > > > I would say: > > > > ti'u ma do co'a sipna ca lo prulamcte > > "At what time did you fall asleep last night?" > > I like that form; as I mentioned I would've used ti'u if I could think > of a more elegant way to do it than {ti'u} and {teti'u} (at that > point, as I was saying, you might as well just use tcika, in my > opinion). It feels less clunky and is of course shorter. I suspect > that I've started leaning on {nu} structures more than I should, > seeing this and some of the past responses to my questions. > > > >> 4. As in the title, how does time work in abstractions which are > >> assigned tenses outside the abstraction? Here the event is assigned a > >> time in the past by the x3 place of {tcika}; so what happens to the > >> {pu}? Is it now before the assigned time of the abstraction (meaning > >> that in this case the {pu} is not what is wanted)? Is it relative to > >> the main {bridi}? > > > > {lo nu do pu co'a sipna} descibes a start of sleeping that happened > > before something. It doesn't say before what exactly, but the usual > > reference is the time of the utterance. Since you are already saying > > by other means that this starting event took place last night, the > > "pu" doesn't really add much. > > OK, I see. I think what I was thinking, while a somewhat interesting > concept (an abstraction has tense(s) associated with it, and tense(s) > within that abstraction are thus relative to that time, rather than to > the speaker), I suspect that it might have issues with recursion (a > problem that is mentioned in LfB a few times, such as with using {ri} > in relative clauses) and would thus be a problematic feature in > general. > > mu'omi'e latros. > > > > --001636c92b056f670704807376bd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable would {zi ma do co'a sipna ca lo prulamcte } also be valid?

In general how do multiple tense markers work in a bridi? =A0Is it = legitimate to say {mi klama lo zarci ca lo=A0cabnanca ca lo cabjeftu ca lo = cabdei }?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Ian Jo= hnson <blind= bravado@gmail.com> wrote:
2010/2/25 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjll= ambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrot= e:
>> I tried translating "When did you go to sleep last night?&quo= t; I know
>> about {sumti tcita} for this (ti'u), but I'm not sure if y= ou can use
>> them to fill 3 of tcika's places instead of just 2, so I did:<= br> >> ma lenu do pu co'a sipna cu tcika le prulamcte (be le cabdei)<= br> >>
>> I have four questions:
>> 1. Just in general, is that structured other-than-terribly?
>
> The "pu" is a bit redundant, since "last night" al= ready shows that it
> was in the past.
>
> I would say:
>
> =A0 ti'u ma do co'a sipna ca lo prulamcte
> =A0 "At what time did you fall asleep last night?"

I like that form; as I mentioned I would've used ti'u if I co= uld think
of a more elegant way to do it than {ti'u} and {teti'u} (at that point, as I was saying, you might as well just use tcika, in my
opinion). It feels less clunky and is of course shorter. I suspect
that I've started leaning on {nu} structures more than I should,
seeing this and some of the past responses to my questions.


>> 4. As in the title, how does time work in abstractions which are >> assigned tenses outside the abstraction? Here the event is assigne= d a
>> time in the past by the x3 place of {tcika}; so what happens to th= e
>> {pu}? Is it now before the assigned time of the abstraction (meani= ng
>> that in this case the {pu} is not what is wanted)? Is it relative = to
>> the main {bridi}?
>
> {lo nu do pu co'a sipna} descibes a start of sleeping that happene= d
> before something. It doesn't say before what exactly, but the usua= l
> reference is the time of the utterance. Since you are already saying > by other means that this starting event took place last night, the
> "pu" doesn't really add much.

OK, I see. I think what I was thinking, while a somewhat interesting<= br> concept (an abstraction has tense(s) associated with it, and tense(s)
within that abstraction are thus relative to that time, rather than to
the speaker), I suspect that it might have issues with recursion (a
problem that is mentioned in LfB a few times, such as with using {ri}
in relative clauses) and would thus be a problematic feature in
general.

mu'omi'e latros.




--001636c92b056f670704807376bd--