Message-Id: <m0rFWy3-00006wC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 7 Dec 1994 19:47:22 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Order of time tenses
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3490
Lines: 82

A typical compound time tense looks something like this:

        PUZI ZEhAPU TAhE ZAhO

The PUZI part takes us from the speaker's time (or some other reference
point) to the time of interest. PU is the direction and ZI the magnitude
of the translation.

The ZEhAPU part gives the duration of the event proper (the event proper
as opposed to the "phase"). The PU says how to consider this duration with
respect to some point, not quite the one where PUZI took us. ZEhAca
sticks the interval's (subjective) midpoint at that point, ZEhApu sticks
the interval from that point and extending towards the past. ZEhAba from
that point and towards the future. (Where is that point will depend on
the ZAhO.)

TAhE says how the interval is to be filled by the event. (I'm including
the 'numberROI' here with TAhE.) It can be continuously filled with one
event, regularly with an indeterminate number of repetitions, etc.

ZAhO says what "phase" we are talking about. The "phase" can coincide
with the event proper (ca'o), be some time after the event proper (ba'o),
before the start of the event proper (pu'o), after what should have been
the end but wasn't (za'o), at the start (co'a), at the end (co'u), etc.
I said that PUZI takes us to the "time of interest", because it doesn't
take us to the time of the event proper, but to the time of this "phase".

All of that is much better and in more detail explained in the tense paper,
but I want to make a comment on the position of ZAhO in the compound tense.

For example, we might say:

        mi puzi ze'apu ta'e za'o vitke ko'a
        I was even a short while ago, still after some time,
        in the habit of visiting him.

Notice that ZEhAPU and TAhE come before ZAhO, even though we need
to know ZAhO before we can locate the interval in time. Because
PUZI takes us to the "phase" of the event, while ZEhAPU and TAhE act on
the event proper, but we don't know where the event proper will fall
until we know ZAhO.

Looking at the complex example I gave, it would seem that it would be
easier to understand if the tenses were in the same order in which the
imaginary journey proceeds, so:

        *mi puzi za'o ze'apu ta'e vitke ko'a
        I was even a short while ago, still after some time,
        in the habit of visiting him.

This makes more sense, because now the imaginary journey proceeds linearly
as the tenses appear. We don't have to jump from PUZI to ZAhO and then
back to ZAhE again. The order would be the same one of the journey:
PUZI ZAhO ZEhAPU TAhE. We can process the tenses as they appear, unlike
what is the case now, where when ZAhO appears we have to re-process
whatever came after PUZI.

Another example:

        mi bazi ba'o bajra
        I will shortly have finished running.

Now, if we want to add an interval size ze'a, to say that the running
lasted for a while, we  have to say:

        mi bazi ze'a ba'o bajra
        I will shortly have finished the longish run.

but to me it would be much easier to understand:

        mi bazi ba'o ze'a bajra
        I will shortly have finished the longish run.

because in the first case the ze'a does not start where the bazi leaves us,
we need to wait until ba'o appears to know what to do with ze'a. I think
it would be more clear if we can evaluate the tenses as they appear.

What is the justification for the current order of the tenses? It can't
be for historical reasons, because compound tenses have practically
never been used, as far as I know.

Jorge