From sentto-44114-17187-1037975517-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Nov 22 07:16:01 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 22 Nov 2002 07:16:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.80]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18FFX6-0000pk-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 07:15:52 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17187-1037975517-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.193] by n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Nov 2002 14:31:58 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 22 Nov 2002 14:31:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 88017 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2002 14:31:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2002 14:31:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.51) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2002 14:31:57 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 06:31:57 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:31:56 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Nov 2002 14:31:57.0144 (UTC) FILETIME=[E917E580:01C29233] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:31:56 +0000 Subject: [lojban] Re: mi nanca li (was: Re: Newbie says hi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2673 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la and cusku di'e >I certainly don't agree that "normal" predicates are not atemporal. >The temporality is determined by the sense of the predicate. Some, >like {cadzu}, are plainly true of certain time segments and false >of other time segments. Others, like {mamta}, are not plainly true >of certain time segments and false of others. I don't think mamta can be true of a time segment where the referent of one of the sumti does not exist. My mother was not my mother in 1960. {i naku le mi mamta cu mamta mi ca li 1960}. Also, I think mamta can even be used for things like "she was my mother for a few days". Perhaps the way I would put it is that Lojban predicates are easily temporalized. The grammar certainly allows the use of tenses with any predicate, so it is natural to try to give meaning to such constructions. >I see no forcing >going on. Durations do seem to me to be atemporal -- that the first >world war lasted for 4 years seems to me be as true of the future >is it is of the past. Even in English, the "lasting" is temporal. In 1900 it would last 4 years, in 1950 it had lasted 4 years, but in 1916 it was lasting 2 years already. Durations are fixed only when seen from the outside. Within the duration, they are evolving. >Certainly I wouldn't see a necessity to >insert an implicit or explicit {pu} in "the first world war nanca >li vo", and nor do I see a necessity to insert an implicit {ba} in >"2003 nanca li pa". I agree, when considering it as a whole event. But things change when the perspective is from the middle of it. >If I am arriving late at a theatre, I mean entirely different >things when I ask "How long does the performance last?" and "How >much time has elapsed since the performance began?" -- I don't see >these as merely different standards for measuring duration; rather, >they're durations of quite different things. I agree that the standard is not the issue. I would say that you can mean two different things by "the performance". In one case it is the whole thing (not yet realized), in the other it refers to what has already transpired. {le ca'o nu tigni cu ca mentu li pamu}, "the performance (which is happening) is now 15 minutes in duration" vs {le ca'o nu tigni cu ba ba'o mentu li sono}, "the performance (which is happening) will have been 90 minutes in duration (once it is over)". Those apply while {le nu tigni} refers to something that is happening, {le ca'o nu tigni}. In other contexts, only the total duration will be relevant, we can then talk of {le co'i nu tigni}. > > We can say: {ca li pasobici mi nanca li paze}, "In 1983 I was 17", > > or {ca li renoreno mi nanca li muvo romu'ei le du'u mi za'o jmive}, > > "In 2020 I will be 54 if I'm still alive" > >This I see as an abuse of {nanca}, perhaps influenced by our native >tongues. But then you don't allow the use of tense with {nanca}. You don't allow things to extend their duration: they always have the duration they will achieve when they are over and only that duration. I prefer to see duration as a changing property. > > There is nothing strange about {mi} nanca-ing different > > numbers at different times > >I suppose the way to get the result you want is to take the meaning >of {mi}-qua-event as variable: that is, {mi} is an event that >spreads through time. In this case the issue is not about nanca >but rather about whether we see events as occupying a certain time >span atemporally, or as dynamically spreading through time. Yes, that may be it. I think the dynamic view is also valid. > > The other perspective, considering that {mi} labels some > > timeless object with a duration that goes from birth to > > death, does not seem to be all that useful > >It seems to me to be very useful, and indeed is very much the way >I intuitively conceive of durations. I see the first world war >as nondynamically occupying a certain region of spacetime, I don't >see us as being in the aftermath of WWI having dynamically spread >through 4 years. I think both views are compatible. Seen from afar, the dynamics lose their gravity and we just see a blot, but we can always zoom in and examine how it developed. > > >This would generalize to, say, "At that time, I had been living in >London > > >for 8 months", as well as to "I am 18 years old" > > > > I would say: {ca le co'e le nu mi xabju la londn cu masti li bi} > >Whereas my natural inclination would be to take {le nu mi xabju la londn >cu masti li bi} to mean that 8 months is the total duration of the >entire event of my residence in London. I think it can mean both, and we can use {le ca'o nu} and {le co'i nu} to distinguish the two when context doesn't make it clear which one we mean. >Likewise for "the film lasts >2 hours", "March is 31 days long", "television ad breaks last 3.5 >minutes", etc. Yes, but also: the film has already lasted 30 minutes, March is already 20 days old (odd, but you get the meaning), this ad break has already been going on for 5 minutes, etc. >"How long is the ad break?" means something different >to me from "How long has the ad break been going on for?". (Of course, >once the ad break is over, "How long did the ad break go on for?" >ends up meaning the same thing as "How long was the ad break?".) Yes. But I think {mentu} can take care of both cases. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/