Received: from mail-ye0-f190.google.com ([209.85.213.190]:49050) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VFRxc-0003c9-JH for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:54:24 -0700 Received: by mail-ye0-f190.google.com with SMTP id m13sf478837yen.27 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:54:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=+z1W6HxHiP17XI2la34gVq0loglhgyisNgzGL5Dlu9s=; b=hyfSPUTO6LnfRwaFrqgYarqk7rEwTzaRqTNyWEi8/2tA/vRmZAzIPOa1EZr4eXQLtX PcuGNBISedp8x6HvdmES0u5enAf7E0Myj+F0d0/kwFBlwoMbHwI1N3fYjT/QmMDEDgPM SKNV0evHT/jqcqHSoN0kuA3ngrZ4ecbDdjhVRRXAQ9IhneVNw5Mb34rpehEKrkZRs67e +X6Ju4zrJj5RMuCoskYVF4dciRlNT7LJ9zC6tMOx2C3JvmwTxAUMqwKM8s4ERl/aR/Ze xlLqidJ+Vpg4EH9kvK94njTNAmC0P8xpR2otspC8POc6EKM/l9UqV8lDXgQiOhiV/770 lATw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=+z1W6HxHiP17XI2la34gVq0loglhgyisNgzGL5Dlu9s=; b=unfWLgdNDUDlV+UHzDtwmc2eq5r9+n6BLkCMWPl9Zw67PbhfcfM/s9od2EipV1zlCA iv8NgGRGaszRG2nKRpalhg+tNWngDUpHdFCobaek+rE1ucc9UJQkRjN+0ah3RPXNUnCs NbzXCR9R8ML4v1c6q0LT+JjSJBBbqNh4LQ9D2gO42FUSeRwfSH3y58xATAcEZMv1uJvj e6RxScxb4CPw1ZtJmkHWTGyA/6n2B3OyvXfTcIBpzBrUkjGqa5bi8542G1WwmGB5brfF i1EbtLwoNY2sd8h2ZgnUBOeXNij87cekvDgkY5vMTISf7eNBxDmeCezeotMnRXySZO8n II+Q== X-Received: by 10.49.88.40 with SMTP id bd8mr52884qeb.27.1377881645298; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:54:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.60.9 with SMTP id d9ls1377109qer.55.gmail; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.132.231 with SMTP id ox7mr49279qeb.35.1377881644935; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT) From: la arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com Cc: John E Clifford Message-Id: <8f130cb8-57cb-48f8-8212-5ee85de52ef1@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1377877225.69445.YahooMailNeo@web184401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <5220A04F.1070603@lojban.org> <1377877225.69445.YahooMailNeo@web184401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i} MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_590_19928726.1377881644470" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_590_19928726.1377881644470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 So what are the examples of {ba'o} and {co'i} in other languages? And independent question: what is "imperfective" in Lojban terms (using only Lojbanic words)? On Friday, August 30, 2013 7:40:25 PM UTC+4, clifford wrote: > > Sometimes real-world terminology gets as mucked up as Lojban's. Here 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 of > tenses and aspects (and, hence, of various event types as well). And, of > course, different theories of tense as well. Both "perfect" and > "perfective" get involved in all of these and Lojban, as usual, tries to > deal with all of them, more or less. In terms of logical tense, an event > occupies 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: prior, concurrent, or posterior. In 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 is spoken of, giving a fourfold scheme, four times repeated, of > points and vectors. In 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. In the grammatical system, the difference between current > relevance of a past event and simple pastness is covered by the difference > between a minus vector on a present axis and a past axis Lojban uses > only the logical system at this level. Logically, of course, the present > relevance is not a tense feature (one might say), but, like other features > of grammatical tense, a psychological projection. Thus, it should be part > of a psychological system like aspect, which involves the speaker's > expectations, etc. as well as the temporal order. But here we get a > terminological problem, since the "usual" terms for the aspects > ("inchoative, initiative, continuative, terminative, completive, > superfective") all end in -ive", we expect the same to apply to the > converse of "inchoative" and thus get "perfective". But that term has > already been taken 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 states, activities, and processes, not achievements). > Since this third system is not relevant here (whatever may be the case in > the grammars of particular languages -- where the supposed > prefective-imperfective distinction actually usually turns out to be > several other things as well -- or instead), we chose to ignore it and use > the term that fit our patterns best (hardly the worst violation of usage in > Lojban). > Now, as far as changing labels is concerned, I suppose, if this label > actually confused someone, even after reading the explanation, the change > should probably be made (and maybe the other aspect terms modified to > coincide). But I doubt that is really necessary. As for using > "retrospective" instead, this is a term used, with obvious problems, > sometimes 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. The 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 aspectual. > ------------------------------ > *From:* Robert LeChevalier > > *To:* bpfk...@googlegroups.com ; John E Clifford < > kali9...@yahoo.com > > *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 8:38 AM > *Subject:* Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i} > > 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 "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 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. ------=_Part_590_19928726.1377881644470 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So what are the examples of {ba'o} and {co'i} in other lan= guages?
And independent question: what is "imperfective" in Lojban term= s (using only Lojbanic words)?

On Friday, August 30, 2013 7:40:25 PM= UTC+4, clifford wrote:
Sometimes real-world terminol= ogy gets as mucked up as Lojban's.  Here is a real case, which not onl= y messes together logic and grammar but grammars of several different langu= ages and tht two different time related systems of tenses and aspects (and,= hence, of various event types as well).  And, of course, different th= eories of tense as well.  Both "perfect" and "perfective" get involved= in all of these and Lojban, as usual, tries to deal with all of them, more= or less.  In terms of logical tense, an event occupies a point or are= a of time and reference to that event is given in terms of of the temporal = relation between that event and the time of reference: prior, concurrent, o= r posterior.  In abstract grammar, an event is placed at or with refer= ence 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.  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 and a past axis  Lojban us= es only the logical system at this level.  Logically, of course, the p= resent relevance is not a tense feature (one might say), but, like other fe= atures of grammatical tense, a psychological projection.  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.  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".  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).  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).  
<= div>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).  But I doubt that is really necessary.  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.  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.

la gleki wrote:
> 1.
>
> ba'o is currently defined (accor= ding to CLL
> <http://dag.github.io/cll/10/10/>) as
>
>= ;      ba'o    ZAhO        &n= bsp;       perfective
>
>
> If we are to u= se 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<= /a>> it's
> better to avoid using the term "perfect" and change to= "retrospective".
>
> So I propose changing the definition of b= a'o to
>
>      ba'o    ZAhO  &n= bsp;             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 describi= ng 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 suc= h a change (especially since
I've been an incompetent student of Russia= n for 20+ years now), but
would like pc's input.  IIRC, the termin= ology 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 l= ogic.

The "perfective" term, IIRC, was consistent with the "superfec= tive" term
(za'o itself), for which I don't know any other linguistic equivalent.

So the choice may be between using linguisti= c 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 &= quot;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.
------=_Part_590_19928726.1377881644470--