From lojbab Fri May 20 09:39:33 1994 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199405201340.AA29999@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: ta'e/na'o To: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:40:38 -0400 (ADT) Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199405200516.AA21590@access3.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at May 20, 94 01:16:53 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1520 Status: RO la lojbab. cusku di'e > na'o is intended to be objective, covering most of the interval, but as > John said, "most" being determined by context. I think that the term "most" is dangerous, and I therefore merely refer to the "typical part" of the interval; i.e. context determines. > ta'e is intended to be a subjective evaluation, as John said, selected with > reference to the observed behavior (I am not sure this would necessarily be > an agent's behavior - a patient could also typically experience something > under some conditions). ta'e might also be seen as correlating to the > high probability that the event would occur during the interval, whereas na'o > is talking more about how much of the interval is associated with the event. I don't think so: we have no tense for "probably". Things asserted to {ta'e} occur, occur just as much as anything else; we simply add the side comment that the occurrence reflects the habitual behavior of some person or animal. > If these seem contradictory or incompatible, we need to find the notes (not > easy these days) or check with pc. There may be some clarification in the > discussion of TAhE in very old cmavo lists, but I may be being optimistic. There's nothing useful in the 10/88 list, except for the note that "ta'e" is tied to "tcaci", whereas "na'o" is tied to "cnano". These are mnemonic hints, not precise definitions as in the case of BAI cmavo. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.