From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:50:01 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 2 Aug 1993 19:48:06 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4046; Mon, 02 Aug 93 19:46:57 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8539; Mon, 02 Aug 93 19:47:38 EDT Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 19:44:29 EDT Reply-To: Jorge LLambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge LLambias Subject: Re: [long] Re: On the tense system X-To: cowan@magpie.ll.pbs.org, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Ukn Aug 2 19:48:08 1993 X-From-Space-Address: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Message-ID: la djan. cusku di'e > > You say "pu'o is the time before the event" > > > > I think this means "a point in time before the event", where the point > > can be taken as a co'i type of point, but it doesn't mean > > "all of time, from time immemorial, to the begining of the event" > > The same goes for the other two. > > On the contrary. It does in principle mean "all of time to the beginning > of the event", because pu'o/ca'o/ba'o represent spans of time, not points > of time. > What do you mean "in principle"? 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"? In all this tenses there are always two times involved: The event's time and the reference time (usually the speaker's). What I understood is that the ZAhO indicate a span of time with respect to a point in time (this last one is not literally a point but can be a span taken as a point, in the same way as co'i). Is this wrong? Examples if possible, please!!! > > In your picture, you write the word at the place of the reference point, > > and use the same graph to show the three tenses. I prefer to separate > > them because some parts of the graph are irrelevant to some tenses, eg > > the end of the event is irrelevant to pu'o, the beginning is irrelevant > > to ba'o, and both boundaries are irrelevant to ca'o. > > 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." {mi pu'o damba} then means: "I'm on the verge of fighting and after a while of fighting I will cease." ????? > > 2) the semantics of the ZAhO as sumti tcita is unnecessarily different > > from that of the rest of the tenses. This I think is important, and this > > is the cause of the switched ba'o and pu'o. > > You will perhaps notice the version number on the published tense paper, > namely 3.11. One reason for this value is that I tried many times to make > ZAhO consistent with the rest of the paper. I could not; usage had already > settled several points, consistently or inconsistently. I hold consistency > to be a virtue, but not the only virtue; sometimes usage wins. (In the > end, usage always wins, and we are very close to the end now.) > 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". 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. Jorge