Received: from mail-ie0-f188.google.com ([209.85.223.188]:49453) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VFnhY-0003g7-H2 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:07:20 -0700 Received: by mail-ie0-f188.google.com with SMTP id k14sf680252iea.25 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=subject:references:from:message-id:date:to:mime-version :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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=43lvg23Rkt2iJ6PtgbkVv3TNVNLudHcBDhYxYi3rKEE=; b=gLUoNbLXoPIkF6W8FKShYgEDJvC0d94CcHpjVF6L4ORM4dmOWCs9taGljBuU8sk4/s bgcXzINH87lvG8c1VKYwYMktxEHLxowJ7y8dC+ixuMjoio+uPcTHbOOabdavAPtDCGLR fuVv70U5x5QKCFLDRHrEj9ecZTYHbHLyIOHw5dfEL0IuWgpVP0zdAez7qsSukUvAWM+S CCg8cU6UAM0HxAwEcLWRC1KixTnLAueOpK16qLFnh5t8vvb/q7yB35rMYE3S8F4mkCNG TEB21Dwaylv470HmCR4H42c6pWRtpuX6KgwV2+uy25G/5JSNu6lNQPzkh/lg42bWDyR1 0uEQ== X-Received: by 10.50.92.100 with SMTP id cl4mr341847igb.8.1377965218233; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.110.101 with SMTP id hz5ls800720igb.0.canary; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:06:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.160.36 with SMTP id xh4mr5517452pab.11.1377965217405; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm14-vm7.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm14-vm7.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com. [98.136.218.79]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ax8si429933pbd.0.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.136.218.79 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.136.218.79; Received: from [98.137.12.62] by nm14.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 Aug 2013 16:06:57 -0000 Received: from [208.71.42.196] by tm7.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 Aug 2013 16:06:57 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp207.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 Aug 2013 16:06:57 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 164289.41948.bm@smtp207.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: wSzSbIkVM1kgjlPHsSngu1ER6mkObOcItZIwM5rByGehp7u AQLPEASTz_zowDm.yGC2V4KqWisjL_GNMLJGtO05hEFUTyQSGATZyJzmCjZn IARIP_9TfI1EFEuinFpycgwsTpRIhxsmvzGV64FdB8oq3I.qtoCJonyz8TDJ z2ThM2GwVy2owB8d18QXnCaJP.2tZZ1wj_ICs9sPhyS7U._Z8DesGs4IRIr7 xmjiyAHTvFHcd4zk5QV3uQXhXjt_U4XCMkHRxUZ8AGh5JK.bdROsxwbEay9A XVXFFm5CVVYPjPTl4.0OQp.cGd6_lnS8VlL_GX4dwgk16lAGnxmMOH8WWAMq gOmOnyUWCw1MEgo3Os81AWDaqCzrip6FQCAb8gcZXbHorCXwvQAAiEdWgcVt N9HdENXRruwPqfa_G40uC6Y0EY9gxKypRMIt64YHrjMdFurdIfQlS4klJ3i3 gh74MSgswMo76WsgWLlSwHqeGIzNGAykvB5cxL6WxoFzjxwz68LkT4aAUJ8J lKzLQWetBMJwuN83.V.odXiwaeRzmKpXDTJemyp4LG.QZuB3YZr3rBsSk1nA IFwgSMH6gjYaCMscsvG_alm0dtpsgjCI7TVN4n7jcHAWAeVSrFF38llsh1ot bHWGNfey3rZ6psjioHmfLTb288lFLQC5G.MzVmUvNR8FAQOPxBPc- X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- X-Rocket-Received: from [10.0.1.3] (kali9putra@99.92.108.194 with ) by smtp207.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Aug 2013 09:06:57 -0700 PDT Subject: [lojban] Fwd: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i} References: From: "John E. Clifford" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) Message-Id: Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:06:56 -0500 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.136.218.79 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.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=Apple-Mail-F735EDFE-E33A-4181-A825-3CEA66F1041D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Spam_score: 1.1 X-Spam_score_int: 11 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: "John E. Clifford" > Date: August 31, 2013 11:04:53 CDT > To: Gleki Arxokuna > Subject: Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i} > > As I said, there does not seem to be a relevant sense of the extra-Lojbanic use of "perfective" which could be expressed separately in Lojban. We can note, as here, that certain Lojban expressions would likely be expressed with perfective forms in a language which had them, but there is no perfective whatever that gets a special mark in Lojban. > Noting an odd usage, as & does is not the same as being confused (indeed, it is rather the opposite). > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 31, 2013, at 10:40, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > >> For one thing you disagreed that co'i is perfective in linguistic sense. But may be you can how can I express perfective (in linguistic sense) in Lojban? >> >> Why are you saying that it confuses nobody when And Rosta also noticed that too as you can see from John Cowan's reply? >> >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 6:42 PM, John E Clifford wrote: >> Ho boy! You don't want to get started on reforming Lojban terminology. I'm professionally committed to the rectification of names, but \, for Lojban, I am happy if someone fairly consistently avoids use-mention confusions. To deal with the morass of unnecessary neologisms (ambiguously defined for the most part) and misused technical terminology that has grown up since 1955 is too much to do. So why bother with one small case that confuses nobody and isn't even all that wrong (in languages which have perfectives and imperfectives, perfects are usually perfective, apparently, though most languages with clear perfects don't have the distinction). As with all the other loglang mishugash, just use the words as indicated and never think about what they mean in some other context (or how you might say the same thing in such other contexts). (Sorry about "superfective"; I invented it in 1968 or so [...] Content analysis details: (1.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: googlegroups.com] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (kali9putra[at]yahoo.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' headers 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid --Apple-Mail-F735EDFE-E33A-4181-A825-3CEA66F1041D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: "John E. Clifford" > Date: August 31, 2013 11:04:53 CDT > To: Gleki Arxokuna > Subject: Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i} >=20 > As I said, there does not seem to be a relevant sense of the extra-Lojban= ic use of "perfective" which could be expressed separately in Lojban. We c= an note, as here, that certain Lojban expressions would likely be expressed= with perfective forms in a language which had them, but there is no perfec= tive whatever that gets a special mark in Lojban. > Noting an odd usage, as & does is not the same as being confused (indeed,= it is rather the opposite). >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Aug 31, 2013, at 10:40, Gleki Arxokuna wr= ote: >=20 >> For one thing you disagreed that co'i is perfective in linguistic sense.= But may be you can how can I express perfective (in linguistic sense) in L= ojban? >>=20 >> Why are you saying that it confuses nobody when And Rosta also noticed t= hat too as you can see from John Cowan's reply? >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 6:42 PM, John E Clifford = wrote: >> Ho boy! You don't want to get started on reforming Lojban terminology. = I'm professionally committed to the rectification of names, but \, for Loj= ban, I am happy if someone fairly consistently avoids use-mention confusion= s. To deal with the morass of unnecessary neologisms (ambiguously defined = for the most part) and misused technical terminology that has grown up sinc= e 1955 is too much to do. So why bother with one small case that confuses = nobody and isn't even all that wrong (in languages which have perfectives a= nd imperfectives, perfects are usually perfective, apparently, though most = languages with clear perfects don't have the distinction). As with all the= other loglang mishugash, just use the words as indicated and never think a= bout what they mean in some other context (or how you might say the same th= ing in such other contexts). (Sorry about "superfective"; I invented it in= 1968 or so because I got tired of writing "continues an activity after the= natural stopping point is passed" five times per page.) The terms may be = obscure and used in odd ways, but they serve their purpose in this context = (and are demonstrably English in every case -- except the one that are demo= nstrably Lojban, of course). >> From: Gleki Arxokuna >> To: John E Clifford =20 >> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:39 PM >>=20 >> Subject: Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i} >>=20 >> Okay. But the main question is why using these strange English words (li= ke "perfective" in wrong sense) that are rather misleading? >> If a person know linguistic terminology they will be misled. >> If they don't know they won't understand these awkward English words (li= ke "superfective" which I can't even find in any dictionary) they will unde= rstand nothing and will only look at examples. >>=20 >> I don't see any reasons of using these broken and useless allegedly-Engl= ish terms. >>=20 >>=20 >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:38 AM, John E Clifford = wrote: >> Other than Lojban? Most other languages are not nearly so clear or tend= to be periphrastic. The usual {ba'o} in English is Have+N on a transitive= verb with the implication that some effect of that evnt still remains: "I = have built a house" suggests the house is still around (though not always, = see "I have built houses"). >>=20 >> But this is retrospective. >>=20 >> *Well, someone may use that word that way, but the usual expression is "= perfect", the name of an aspect, while "retrospective" is more commonly use= d for a tense in the axis-vector system. >>=20 >> =20 >> The situation is even more complex for good examples of {co'i}: the ann= ouncer's "He shoots.He scores~" are both cases, but not marked formally in = any way (well, tone of voice perhaps).=20 >> As for imperfectives in Lojban, you first have to say what imperfective= s are in general and then the answer is just "whatever isn't perfective (i.= e., not imperfective)". That is, there is a division of forms which are di= fferent but which do not appear to be separated consistently by any semanti= c (etc.) characters. The usual line is that perfectives take events as ato= mic wholes and imperfectives as analysable. >>=20 >> Okay, so perfective is {co'i} as it views events without internal struct= ure. >>=20 >> *Well, {co'i} would probably be a perfective in a language which had tha= t distinction (Lojban doesn't), but several other things would probably be = perfectives as well (initiative, for example, and all manner of achievments= as opposed to their related activities: hearing vs. listening, for example= ). =20 >>=20 >> This seems to mean, practically, that perfectives naturally are achieve= ments, transition events, while imperfectives are everything else. But tha= t doesn't quite work either, though any actual use of a temporal aspect (in= choative through superfective) seems to have to involve an imperfective, as= do the distributive aspects (iterative, habitual, semelfactive, ... -- for= which Lojban goes off in a somewhat different direction) >>=20 >> So what's wrong? imperfective is {co'inai} then. >>=20 >> *Not exactly, since that includes {ca'o} and {co'u}, {de'a} and {di'a} w= hich would also be perfective on this scheme. Perfective and imperfective = seem to be primarily morphological categories that are used for a variety o= f semantic purposes in various languages, not the same purposes in all lang= uages (some even allow cases of perfective imperfectives and conversely). = There does not seem to be a uniform semantic point here. (Of course, much = the same can be said for tense forms and aspects, but at least these two ha= ve relatively clear systems underlying them, while the perfective-imperfect= ive distinction does not -- or at least not one that I can figure out) >>=20 >>=20 >> All in all in future revision of CLL we shouldn't leave this quasi-expla= nation of ZAhO and TAhE. Either rephrase definitions in normal language or = apply normal linguistic terminology using Wikipedia. >> Or both. >>=20 >> *Sorry, loglang culture has clearly opted for neither. But, within its = own context, it is as clear as anything else. >>=20 >> . The point is that Lojban simply does not distinguish in this way as a= separate matter but deals with the various things that this distinction is= used for in a variety of ways, in tenses and aspects and even in vocabular= y. =20 >> From: la arxokuna >> To: lojban@googlegroups.com=20 >> Cc: John E Clifford =20 >> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:54 AM >> Subject: Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i} >>=20 >> 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)? >>=20 >> 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, o= f course, different theories of tense as well. Both "perfect" and "perfect= ive" 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 t= he temporal relation between that event and the time of reference: prior, c= oncurrent, or posterior. In abstract grammar, an event is placed at or wit= h reference to a "present" and that present is placed with reference to fur= ther moments involved in the conceptualization of that event as it is spoke= n of, giving a fourfold scheme, four times repeated, of points and vectors.= In the logical system, neither "perfect" nor "perfective" have a place: w= hether 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 syste= m, the difference between current relevance of a past event and simple past= ness 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. Logica= lly, of course, the present relevance is not a tense feature (one might say= ), but, like other features of grammatical tense, a psychological projectio= n. Thus, it should be part of a psychological system like aspect, which in= volves the speaker's expectations, etc. as well as the temporal order. But= here we get a terminological problem, since the "usual" terms for the aspe= cts ("inchoative, initiative, continuative, terminative, completive, superf= ective") 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 take= n over in yet a third system of terminology, essentially a counter to the w= hole aspect system, which takes events as extended (so applies only to stat= es, activities, and processes, not achievements). Since this third system = is not relevant here (whatever may be the case in the grammars of particula= r languages -- where the supposed prefective-imperfective distinction actua= lly 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). =20 >> Now, as far as changing labels is concerned, I suppose, if this label ac= tually confused someone, even after reading the explanation, the change sho= uld probably be made (and maybe the other aspect terms modified to coincide= ). But I doubt that is really necessary. As for using "retrospective" ins= tead, this is a term used, with obvious problems, sometimes for minus vecto= rs, sometimes for past axes in grammatical tense systems, so only occasiona= lly 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 aspe= ctual. >> From: Robert LeChevalier >> To: bpfk...@googlegroups.com; John E Clifford =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 >> > ) 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 thi= ngs. >> > 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 translatio= n. >>=20 >>=20 >> 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. 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. >>=20 >> The "perfective" term, IIRC, was consistent with the "superfective" term= =20 >> (za'o itself), for which I don't know any other linguistic equivalent. >>=20 >> So the choice may be between using linguistic terminology or tense logic= =20 >> terminology. >>=20 >> I've cc'd this message to pc to make sure that he sees it. >>=20 >> lojbab >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 --=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. --Apple-Mail-F735EDFE-E33A-4181-A825-3CEA66F1041D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1


Sent from my iPad=

Begin forwarded message:

From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Date: August 31, 2013 11:0= 4:53 CDT
To: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [= bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i}

As I said, there does= not seem to be a relevant sense of the extra-Lojbanic use of "perfective" = which could be expressed separately in Lojban.  We can note, as here, = that certain Lojban expressions would likely be expressed with perfective f= orms in a language which had them, but there is no perfective whatever that= gets a special mark in Lojban.
Noting an odd usage, as & doe= s is not the same as being confused (indeed, it is rather the opposite).
Sent from my iPad

On Aug 31, 2013, at 10:40, Gleki Arxok= una <gleki.is.my.name@gmai= l.com> wrote:

For one thing you disagreed that co'i is perfective in li= nguistic sense. But may be you can how can I express perfective (in linguis= tic sense) in Lojban?

Why are you saying that it confuse= s nobody when And Rosta also noticed that too as you can see from John Cowa= n's reply?



On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 6:42 PM, John E Clifford = <kali9putra@ya= hoo.com> wrote:
Ho boy!  You don't = want to get started on reforming Lojban terminology.  I'm professional= ly committed to the rectification of names, but \, for Lojban, I am happy i= f someone fairly consistently avoids use-mention confusions.  To deal = with the morass of unnecessary neologisms (ambiguously defined for the most= part) and misused technical terminology that has grown up since 1955 is to= o much to do.  So why bother with one small case that confuses nobody = and isn't even all that wrong (in languages which have perfectives and impe= rfectives, perfects are usually perfective, apparently, though most languag= es with clear perfects don't have the distinction).  As with all the o= ther loglang mishugash, just use the words as indicated and never think abo= ut what they mean in some other context (or how you might say the same thing in such other contexts).  (Sorry about "supe= rfective"; I invented it in 1968 or so because I got tired of writing "cont= inues an activity after the natural stopping point is passed" five times pe= r page.)  The terms may be obscure and used in odd ways, but they serv= e their purpose in this context (and are demonstrably English in every case= -- except the one that are demonstrably Lojban, of course).
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:39 PM

Su= bject: Re: [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i}<= br>

Okay. But the main question is why = using these strange English words (like "perfective" in wrong sense) that a= re rather misleading?
If a person know linguistic terminology they will= be misled.
If they don't know they won't understand these awkward English words (= like "superfective" which I can't even find in any dictionary) they will un= derstand nothing and will only look at examples.

I don't see any reasons of using these broken and usele= ss allegedly-English terms.


= On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:38 AM, John E Clifford <kali= 9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Other than Lojban?  Most other langua= ges are not nearly so clear or tend to be periphrastic.  The usual {ba= 'o} in English is Have+N on a transitive verb with the implication that som= e effect of that evnt still remains: "I have built a house" suggests the ho= use is still around (though not always, see "I have built houses").<= /div>

But this is retrospective.

*Well, someone may use that word that way, but = the usual expression is "perfect", the name of an aspect, while "retrospect= ive" is more commonly used for a tense in the axis-vector system.

 
 The situation is even more complex for good examples of {= co'i}: the announcer's "He shoots.He scores~" are both cases, but not marke= d formally in any way (well, tone of voice perhaps). 
 As for imp= erfectives in Lojban, you first have to say what imperfectives are in gener= al and then the answer is just "whatever isn't perfective (i.e., not imperfective)".  Th= at is, there is a division of forms which are different but which do not appear to be separated consistently by any semantic (etc.) ch= aracters.  The usual line is that perfectives take events as atomic wh= oles and imperfectives as analysable.

Okay, so perfective is {co'i} as it views events withou= t internal structure.

*Well, {co'i} would pr= obably be a perfective in a language which had that distinction (Lojban doe= sn't), but several other things would probably be perfectives as well (init= iative, for example, and all manner of achievments as opposed to their rela= ted activities: hearing vs. listening, for example).  

 This = seems to mean, practically, that perfectives naturally are achievements, tr= ansition events, while imperfectives are everything else.  But that do= esn't quite work either, though any actual use of a temporal aspect (inchoa= tive through superfective) seems to have to involve an imperfective, as do = the distributive aspects (iterative, habitual, semelfactive, ... -- for whi= ch Lojban goes off in a somewhat different direction)

So what's wrong? imperfective = is {co'inai} then.

*Not exactly, since that = includes {ca'o} and {co'u}, {de'a} and {di'a} which would also be perfectiv= e on this scheme.  Perfective and imperfective seem to be primarily mo= rphological categories that are used for a variety of semantic purposes in = various languages, not the same purposes in all languages (some even allow = cases of perfective imperfectives and conversely).  There does not see= m to be a uniform semantic point here.  (Of course, much the same can = be said for tense forms and aspects, but at least these two have relatively= clear systems underlying them, while the perfective-imperfective distincti= on does not -- or at least not one that I can figure out)


All in all in future r= evision of CLL we shouldn't leave this quasi-explanation of ZAhO and TAhE. = Either rephrase definitions in normal language or apply normal linguistic terminology using Wikipedia.=
Or both.

*Sorry, loglang culture ha= s clearly opted for neither.  But, within its own context, it is as cl= ear as anything else.

.  The point is that= Lojban simply does not distinguish in this way as a separate matter but de= als with the various things that this distinction is used for in a variety = of ways, in tenses and aspects and even in vocabulary.  
From: la arxok= una <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.= com
Cc: John E Cliff= ord <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 20= 13 11:54 AM
Subject: Re:= [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i}

So what are the examples of {ba'o} and {co'i} in othe= r 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 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 les= s.  In terms of logical tense, an event occupies a point or area of ti= me and reference to that event is given in terms of of the temporal relatio= n between that event and the time of reference: prior, concurrent, or poste= rior.  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 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.
From: Robert LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
= To: bpfk= ...@googlegroups.com; John E Clifford <kali9...@= yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 20= 13 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: = [bpfk] Changing the definitions of {ba'o} and {co'i}

la gleki wrote:
> 1.
>
> ba'o is currently defined (accor= ding to CLL
> <http://dag.github.io/cll/10/ 10/>) 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 thi= ngs.
> 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
>
>= ;      ba'o    ZAhO        &n= bsp;       retrospective
>
>
>
> 2.<= br>>
> 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 translatio= n.


I don't necessarily have a problem with such a change (especi= ally since
I've been an incompetent student of Russian for 20+ years now), but
wou= ld like pc's input.  IIRC, the terminology came from his exposition to me of tense logic's terminology used for Aristotelian events, and pc <= br> was at the time a specialist in tense logic.

The "perfective" term, = IIRC, was consistent with the "superfective" term
(za'o itself), for wh= ich 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.
--Apple-Mail-F735EDFE-E33A-4181-A825-3CEA66F1041D--