From nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU Tue Aug 3 01:11:37 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 3 Aug 1993 01:11:35 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4940; Tue, 03 Aug 93 01:10:28 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0552; Tue, 03 Aug 93 01:11:41 EDT Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 15:08:20 +1000 Reply-To: Nick Nicholas Sender: Lojban list From: Nick Nicholas Subject: Re: TECH: A pragmatics sampler X-To: lojbab@GREBYN.COM X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: from "Logical Language Group" at Aug 3, 93 00:31:30 am Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: The Seraphim surely rejoiced when Logical Language Group spoke thus: #I find your examples here a bit unintelligible, partlyu becaus #e they don't #have parallel structure, oe of them has two "fo"s and both use ke'a in a way #that mean nothing to me. Oh! Dear, god knows how *that* happened... #So I fall back on your English (and reference to Russian) and think I #understand your qeustion: #mi cpedu fi ko'a fe le krinu be lenu leko'a xance cu desku #I asked of him the reason for the event of his hands shaking. #The Lojban is tenseless and thus totally pragmatics driven as to whether the #shaking was in the past present or future of the asking. The Lojban SHOULD #be tenseless unless the speaker wishes to make clear that one happened before, #at the same time as, or after the other, in which case I would replace the #"cu" with the appropriate pu/ca/ba (or maybe even a ZAhO %^) Yeah, I know. The question was: what does mi cpedu fi ko'a fe le krinu be lenu leko'a xance pu desku .i mi cpedu fi ko'a fe le krinu be lenu leko'a xance ca desku and .i mi cpedu fi ko'a fe le krinu be lenu leko'a xance ba desku mean? If Lojban relativises like Russian, these mean, respectively, "why his hands had been shaking", "why his hands were shaking", and "why his hands were going to shake". If Lojban has absolute deixis like English, they will mean respectively "why his hands shook", "why his hands are now shaking (now being the physical here-and=now of the speaker", and "why his hands will shake". I doubt usage will settle this; there are probably strong tendencies (and arguments!) for both sides. I'm just wondering if the Imaginary Journeys concept, the journeys being made by the speaker, settles the issue in favour of absolute deixis. I'd be unhappy if it did, because deixis relativisation, giving as it does a nice analogy between direct speech tense and indirect speech tense, appeals to me much more. Nick, who thinks he's getting obscure because of too little sleep. ******************************************************************************* A freshman once observed to me: Nick Nicholas am I, of Melbourne, Oz. On the edge of the Rubicon, nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: nicxjo) men don't go fishing. CogSci and CompSci & wannabe Linguist. - Alice Goodman, _Nixon In China_ Mail me! Mail me! Mail me! Or don't!!