Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 216.109.115.70 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.109.115.70;
References: <Jgnl1m04N56Cr6M01gnmyu> <5220A04F.1070603@lojban.org>
Message-ID: <1377877225.69445.YahooMailNeo@web184401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i}
To: lojban list <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5220A04F.1070603@lojban.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1009959307-684740598-1377877225=:69445"
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--1009959307-684740598-1377877225=:69445
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sometimes real-world terminology gets as mucked up as Lojban's. =A0Here is =
a real case, which not only messes together logic and grammar but grammars =
of several different languages and tht two different time related systems o=
f tenses and aspects (and, hence, of various event types as well). =A0And, =
of course, different theories of tense as well. =A0Both "perfect" and "perf=
ective" get involved in all of these and Lojban, as usual, tries to deal wi=
th all of them, more or less. =A0In terms of logical tense, an event occupi=
es a point or area of time and reference to that event is given in terms of=
 of the temporal relation between that event and the time of reference: pri=
or, concurrent, or posterior. =A0In abstract grammar, an event is placed at=
 or with reference to a "present" and that present is placed with reference=
 to further moments involved in the conceptualization of that event as it i=
s spoken of, giving a fourfold scheme, four times repeated, of points and
 vectors. =A0In the logical system, neither "perfect" nor "perfective" have=
 a place: whether an event is considered as a whole or as having parts does=
 not enter in, nor does the matter of its present relevance. =A0In the gram=
matical system, the difference between current relevance of a past event an=
d simple pastness is covered by the difference between a minus vector on a =
present axis=A0and=A0a past axis=A0=A0Lojban uses only the logical system a=
t this level. =A0Logically, of course, the present relevance is not a tense=
 feature (one might say), but, like other features of grammatical tense, a =
psychological projection. =A0Thus, it should be part of a psychological sys=
tem like aspect, which involves the speaker's expectations, etc. as well as=
 the temporal order. =A0But here we get a terminological problem, since the=
 "usual" terms for the aspects ("inchoative, initiative, continuative, term=
inative, completive, superfective") all end in -ive", we expect the same to
 apply to the converse of "inchoative" and thus get "perfective". =A0But th=
at term has already been taken over in yet a third system of terminology, e=
ssentially a counter to the whole aspect system, which takes events as exte=
nded (so applies only to states, activities, and processes, not achievement=
s). =A0Since this third system is not relevant here (whatever may be the ca=
se in the grammars of particular languages -- where the supposed prefective=
-imperfective distinction actually usually turns out to be several other th=
ings as well -- or instead), we chose to ignore it and use the term that fi=
t our patterns best (hardly the worst violation of usage in Lojban). =A0
Now, as far as changing labels is concerned, I suppose, if this label actua=
lly confused someone, even after reading the explanation, the change should=
 probably be made (and maybe the other aspect terms modified to coincide). =
=A0But I doubt that is really necessary. =A0As for using "retrospective" in=
stead, this is a term used, with obvious problems, sometimes for minus vect=
ors, sometimes for past axes in grammatical tense systems, so only occasion=
ally relevant to {ba'o} and even then not correct since not aspect. =A0The =
use of "perfective" for {co'i} is even worse, since it is used, as pointed =
out, for complete events, not the event of completion, and, again, is not a=
spectual.

________________________________
 From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>=20
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i}
=20

la gleki wrote:
> 1.
>
> ba'o is currently defined (according to CLL
> <http://dag.github.io/cll/10/10/>) as
>
>=A0 =A0 =A0  ba'o=A0 =A0 ZAhO=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_tense> it's
> better to avoid using the term "perfect" and change to "retrospective".
>
> So I propose changing the definition of ba'o to
>
>=A0 =A0 =A0  ba'o=A0 =A0 ZAhO=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 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
>
>=A0 =A0 =A0  co'i=A0 =A0 ZAhO=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 perfective/ac=
hievative
>
>
> "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=20
I've been an incompetent student of Russian for 20+ years now), but=20
would like pc's input.=A0 IIRC, the terminology came from his exposition=20
to me of tense logic's terminology used for Aristotelian events, and pc=20
was at the time a specialist in tense logic.

The "perfective" term, IIRC, was consistent with the "superfective" term=20
(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=20
terminology.

I've cc'd this message to pc to make sure that he sees it.

lojbab

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--1009959307-684740598-1377877225=:69445
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:ti=
mes new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Sometimes =
real-world terminology gets as mucked up as Lojban's. &nbsp;Here is a real =
case, which not only messes together logic and grammar but grammars of seve=
ral different languages and tht two different time related systems of tense=
s and aspects (and, hence, of various event types as well). &nbsp;And, of c=
ourse, different theories of tense as well. &nbsp;Both "perfect" and "perfe=
ctive" get involved in all of these and Lojban, as usual, tries to deal wit=
h all of them, more or less. &nbsp;In terms of logical tense, an event occu=
pies a point or area of time and reference to that event is given in terms =
of of the temporal relation between that event and the time of reference: p=
rior, concurrent, or posterior. &nbsp;In abstract grammar, an event is plac=
ed at or with reference to a "present" and that present is placed with
 reference to further moments involved in the conceptualization of that eve=
nt as it is spoken of, giving a fourfold scheme, four times repeated, of po=
ints and vectors. &nbsp;In the logical system, neither "perfect" nor "perfe=
ctive" have a place: whether an event is considered as a whole or as having=
 parts does not enter in, nor does the matter of its present relevance. &nb=
sp;In the grammatical system, the difference between current relevance of a=
 past event and simple pastness is covered by the difference between a minu=
s vector on a present axis</span><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">&nbsp;and=
</span><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">&nbsp;</span><span style=3D"font-si=
ze: 12pt;">a past axis</span><span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">&nbsp;&nbsp;L=
ojban uses only the logical system at this level. &nbsp;Logically, of cours=
e, the present relevance is not a tense feature (one might say), but, like =
other features of grammatical tense, a psychological projection. &nbsp;Thus=
,
 it should be part of a psychological system like aspect, which involves th=
e speaker's expectations, etc. as well as the temporal order. &nbsp;But her=
e we get a terminological problem, since the "usual" terms for the aspects =
("inchoative, initiative, continuative, terminative, completive, superfecti=
ve") all end in -ive", we expect the same to apply to the converse of "inch=
oative" and thus get "perfective". &nbsp;But that term has already been tak=
en over in yet a third system of terminology, essentially a counter to the =
whole aspect system, which takes events as extended (so applies only to sta=
tes, activities, and processes, not achievements). &nbsp;Since this third s=
ystem is not relevant here (whatever may be the case in the grammars of par=
ticular languages -- where the supposed prefective-imperfective distinction=
 actually usually turns out to be several other things as well -- or instea=
d), we chose to ignore it and use the term that fit our patterns
 best (hardly the worst violation of usage in Lojban). &nbsp;</span></div><=
div><span>Now, as far as changing labels is concerned, I suppose, if this l=
abel actually confused someone, even after reading the explanation, the cha=
nge should probably be made (and maybe the other aspect terms modified to c=
oincide). &nbsp;But I doubt that is really necessary. &nbsp;As for using "r=
etrospective" instead, this is a term used, with obvious problems, sometime=
s for minus vectors, sometimes for past axes in grammatical tense systems, =
so only occasionally relevant to {ba'o} and even then not correct since not=
 aspect. &nbsp;The use of "perfective" for {co'i} is even worse, since it i=
s used, as pointed out, for complete events, not the event of completion, a=
nd, again, is not aspectual.</span></div>  <div style=3D"font-family: 'time=
s new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style=3D"fo=
nt-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size:
 12pt;"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <hr size=3D"1">  <font size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"=
> <b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Robert LeChevalier =
&lt;lojbab@lojban.org&gt;<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">To:</sp=
an></b> bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; John E Clifford &lt;kali9putra@yahoo.co=
m&gt; <br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, A=
ugust 30, 2013 8:38 AM<br> <b><span style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Subject:</=
span></b> Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i}<br> </fo=
nt> </div> <div class=3D"y_msg_container"><br>
la gleki wrote:<br>&gt; 1.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; ba'o is currently defined (accor=
ding to CLL<br>&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"http://dag.github.io/cll/10/10/" target=
=3D"_blank">http://dag.github.io/cll/10/10/</a>&gt;) as<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbs=
p; &nbsp; &nbsp;  ba'o&nbsp; &nbsp; ZAhO&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; =
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; perfective<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; If we are to use no=
rmal linguistic terminology then this is wrong.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; {ba'o} is p=
erfect, not perfective - those are completely different things.<br>&gt; Acc=
ording to Wikipedia &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_tense&gt; it's=
<br>&gt; better to avoid using the term "perfect" and change to "retrospect=
ive".<br>&gt;<br>&gt; So I propose changing the definition of ba'o to<br>&g=
t;<br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  ba'o&nbsp; &nbsp; ZAhO&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; =
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; retrospective<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br=
>&gt; 2.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; As for "perfective" it looks like it's expressed
 using {co'i}.<br>&gt; Another independent proposal is that co'i should be =
defined as<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  co'i&nbsp; &nbsp; ZAhO&nbsp=
; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; perfective/achievative<b=
r>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; "perfective" is used quite extensively when describi=
ng Chinese and<br>&gt; Russian grammar so normalising terminology is a must=
 pe'i.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Neither proposal changes anything in Lojban itself, =
only in translation.<br><br><br>I don't necessarily have a problem with suc=
h a change (especially since <br>I've been an incompetent student of Russia=
n for 20+ years now), but <br>would like pc's input.&nbsp; IIRC, the termin=
ology came from his exposition <br>to me of tense logic's terminology used =
for Aristotelian events, and pc <br>was at the time a specialist in tense l=
ogic.<br><br>The "perfective" term, IIRC, was consistent with the "superfec=
tive" term <br>(za'o itself), for which I don't know any other
 linguistic equivalent.<br><br>So the choice may be between using linguisti=
c terminology or tense logic <br>terminology.<br><br>I've cc'd this message=
 to pc to make sure that he sees it.<br><br>lojbab<br><br><br></div> </div>=
 </div>  </div></body></html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--1009959307-684740598-1377877225=:69445--