From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:50:11 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 3 Aug 1993 22:34:29 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9673; Tue, 03 Aug 93 22:33:21 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9881; Tue, 03 Aug 93 22:34:30 EDT Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 11:28:36 EDT Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: [long] Re: On the tense system X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9308022347.AA15465@relay1.UU.NET>; from "Jorge LLambias" at Aug 2, 93 7:44 pm Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Ukn Aug 3 22:34:30 1993 X-From-Space-Address: snark!cowan@GVLS1.VFL.PARAMAX.COM Message-ID: la xorxes. cusku di'e > What do you mean "in principle"? By "in principle" I mean that while mi pu'o morsi is technically true, since I am within the span of time before I-am-dead becomes true, pragmatically it would tend to suggest that I foresee the time of my death (which I do not). > In the examples I've seen it refers > to a point in time or to an event's duration taken as a point. > > Does {mi pu'o klama} mean that I am at one point in time before the > beginning of my going, or not? how do I fit the "all time"? It means that the reference time is somewhere within that span. As a sumti tcita, it means that the main bridi's time is contained within the span of the time before the time of the seltcita sumti. > > Both boundaries are relevant, not irrelevant, to "ca'o"; they are precisely > > the boundaries of that span. > > > > {mi ca'o klama} then means: > > "I started going a while ago, I am still going, and I will cease in another > while." Yes. > {mi pu'o damba} then means: > > "I'm on the verge of fighting and after a while of fighting I will cease." No. I explicitly limited my comment to "ca'o". You are quite correct that the beginning is irrelevant to "ba'o" and the end irrelevant to "pu'o". > I wish I had gotten this answer before I tried to look for consistency in > something that is not consistent. Of course I can't argue with "that's the > way it is". Don't feel that way. You have exposed points of great pedagogical importance, and I may revise the tense paper to make fuller explanations of them. It is always worthwhile having a detailed explication of someone's deductions from one of my papers: if correct, I feel successful; if incorrect, I know what to improve. > Then the way to inerpret the ZAhO sumti tcita is: > > ZAhO le nu broda <===> ca le nu ZAhO broda > > Is this right? If it is, then I will never use the first form, which > is inconsistent with the rest of the system of tenses. I'm not sure whether this is correct or not. I will have to rethink the matter somewhat. -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.