Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 25 Aug 1993 18:29:08 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 25 Aug 1993 18:29:04 -0400 Message-Id: <199308252229.AA01418@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9401; Wed, 25 Aug 93 18:27:40 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6433; Wed, 25 Aug 93 18:30:23 EDT Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1993 18:24:42 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: QUERY on ZI & ZEhA X-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Wed Aug 25 14:24:42 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET >I like the other interpretation of double tenses, why should we have >to assume a "ku"? Because the grammar doesn't consider the two in a single tense to be grammatical (and there probably is no unambiguous way to make it do so with all plausible orders of tenses). The grammar DOES consider some ordeings of tenses to be a single tense, of course, but then when you do so, there is a specific grammatical hierarchy and structure that Ideally should dictate the semantics (it sdoesn't always, but should wherever possible). >nAnd why is "mi ba'o klama" different from "mi klama ba'oku", but >"mi ba klama", the same as "mi klama baku"? Or isn't it? The latter two are the same; the former two are not. This is because "ba" is a pure tense, and the head of a tense structure. "ba'o" is not since it has an implicitly ellipsized value from among pu/ca/ba and from among ze'i/ze'a/ze'u/ze'e. They are not grammatically identical. But even if they were, it has already been stated that the basis for the perfective tenses is some event, and not the space-time origin. They are two mutually incompatible conventions. You cannot use one as the basis for interpreting sentences built on the other. Likewise, the story-time convention is incompatible with either of the two. We did what we had to to make each system self-consistent. JO> How do I say "I'm about to finish eating"? le nu mi citka pu'o mulno mi ca'ojebazico'u mulno I'm sure there are other possibilities. A key point about the Lojban tense system - while it is probably more powerful than any single natlangs tense systems, it cannot say everything that could be expressed using tense, especially complex and compound tenses. Tense uis after all an abbreviuation for a subordinate metalinguistic bridi about time (or space) relationships. If you have two points you want to make about the time relationship, you may need to use two sentences, or even 3. There is no ZAhO tense defined for "about to finish". the fact that one possibly coining doesn't work is not grounds for throwing it out. We had already decided for example that we didn;t have or necessarily need a superinchoative tense, either. lojbab