Message-Id: <199309101229.AA01951@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Fri, 10 Sep 1993 13:26:04 BST
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      TECH: states, activities, etc. (was RE: GEN: How Nick is faring)
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO

doi nitcion.

I don't think real language fits quite as neatly into these
categories of event as you appear to want it to.
Any given verb / gismu may or may not carry the implication
of a particular style of event, and it may also depend on
the way it is used.

(I haven't come across this stuff before, but it all seems
fairly common-sense, so I'll assume it makes sense to deal
with it in that fashion.)

For example, "run" on its own is no doubt an activity,
as you say, but "run from A to B" is an accomplishment,
and satisfies the appropriate tests.  In English, these
are distinguished only by the presence or absence of
argument(s) ([source and] destination), whereas in Lojban
it is the difference between {bajra} and {bajrykla}.
Other cases may be the other way round.

Another feature which affects the nature of the event is
the use of event contours in Lojban.

        pu'o    state
        co'a    achievement / accomplishment
        ca'o    state / activity
        co'u    achievement / accomplishment
        ba'o    state

        mo'u    achievement
        za'o    state / activity

(These appear to be the normal interpretations, but there may
be particular situations which demand a different one.)

Thus {djuno} on its own is almost certainly a state, but
{co'a djuno} is either an achievement or an accomplishment,
depending on your point of view, and the amount of "knowledge"
involved.

        I spent an hour finding out about modal logic.
        (accomplishment, or even activity)
        I found out about the "necessary equivalence" problem yesterday.
        (achievement)

{facki}, on the other hand, I normally think of as an achievement,
and indeed as virtually synonymous with {co'a djuno}, and it's
much more problematical to try and treat it any other way, or to
use event contours with it.  I'm not sure whether it's appropriate
for the accomplishment or activity as above.

Dying, which is {co'u jmive} or {co'a morsi}, can also be an
achievement or an accomplishment.

        He died at 3 o'clock.  (achievement)
        He took an hour to die.  (accomplishment)

So you can have {pu'u co'a morsi} or {mu'e co'a morsi}, and both
are potentially meaningful for the same "event", because we don't
otherwise distinguish in Lojban between the gradual process of
changing state and the point at which the final state is reached.
{morsi} on its own is of course {ba'o jmive}, and is a state
({za'i morsi}).

So, on the one hand, I don't think you can just pick a verb or
gismu and say "this is an achievement", or whatever, since it
depends on the context.

On the other hand, I believe that these ideas are very useful,
and help us decide what combinations of NU and ZAhO and other
qualifiers such as arguments are likely to be meaningful.
This is just one of the ways of producing Lojban grammatical
nonsense.

(ta'o

> --- states are a kind of zasti,
> activities a kind of gasnu/zukte, achievements a kind of binxo, and
> accomplishments a kind of rinka.> ...

I believe the goal-oriented nature of {zukte} makes
it typically an accomplishment, and a more convincing
one than {rinka}, which could easily be an achievement,
for example.  Likewise, I don't find {gasnu} a particularly
helpful example of an activity, but the best alternative
I can find at the moment is {cuntu}.)

mi'e .i,n.