From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 13 12:32:38 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dhufd-0005Dg-DT
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:32:29 -0700
Received: from web81308.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.83])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1Dhufa-0005DX-2h
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:32:29 -0700
Received: (qmail 47276 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Jun 2005 19:32:24 -0000
Message-ID: <20050613193224.47271.qmail@web81308.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.50.91] by web81308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:32:24 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 12:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: zvati
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <20050613185732.GA13307@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 10159
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list



--- Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> Moved off of beginners, cuz yeesh.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:40:54PM -0300, Jorge
> Llamb?as wrote:
> > On 6/13/05, Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > I disagreed that zvati was purely
> locational, because of the way
> > > the English was written.  I have been
> convinced that the
> > > intention was locational, and have updated
> jbovlaste to reflect
> > > this.
> > 
> > I think describing {zvati} as "atemporal"
> confuses things more
> > than anything. Are you going to add
> "atemporal" to {zunle},
> > {crane}, {sruri}, {snanu}, and all other
> spatial relationships
> > too? 
> 
> I could if you like.  But I don't find any of
> them confusing in this
> respect; I did find zvati confusing.
> 
> [snip examples]
> 
> > Are all of these "atemporal"? All of them
> describe relative 
> > positions, but normally they describe
> simultaneous positions.
> 
> None of them specify that they can operate with
> events in both
> places, which is what confused me.
> 
> > If I want to say that A is left of where B
> was, or in front of
> > where B was, or around of where B was, or
> south of where B was,
> > then that requires a more elaborate
> description. Then A is not
> > left/in front/around/south of/at B, but
> rather it is related to a
> > place where B was.
> 
> Depends on context.
> 
> > Spatial relationships assume that the two
> things being 
> > compared are there at the same time. 
> 
> Depends on context.
> 
> > {zvati} is not special in this regard, so if
> you describe it as
> > "atemporal" all the others would be atemporal
> too.
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> Look, it's really simple: I find zvati
> confusing, because it sounds
> to me like it is relating things in both space
> and time, rather than
> just space.  I seem to be wrong.  I want to
> change the wording to
> make the cunfusion I experienced less likely
> for others.  If you
> don't like my wording change, suggest another
> one.
> 
Just drop the reference to events in the
parentheses -- indeed, drop the parentheses
altogether, since we don't want to exclude
events, just not mention them to confuse people. 
Or, of course, add "(object/event)" in all the
other cases like {zvati}.  (Are spatial metaphors
used for time to be excluded or are they covered
by some other device?)