Message-Id: <199501281810.AA09457@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Sat, 28 Jan 1995 13:13:11 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: ago
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la pycyn cusku di'e

> (BTW the right size in Lojban
> will always be a little longer than in English, since the lojban units
> are a little longer - so "the right size" is relative to the base of the
> language.)

It depends what you mean by the size of a unit. Since English has many
more syllables available than Lojban, it would be reasonable to expect
that English syllables will take longer to say in average than Lojban
ones (in fluent speech). This is also what happens with Spanish, which
has many fewer syllables available than English (and even than Lojban),
but that doesn't mean that it takes more time to express something.

> (I assume that _zai_ in my ancient cmavo list is defunct or, at least,
> does not work as it seems to from the description there)

What was its ancient meaning? Its current one ("select alphabet") seems
to me to be a terrible waste.


>         "before the past year triad" _pu lopu nirne cimei_

This one is essentially equivalent to lojbab's suggestion for "thirty
meters to the left". It confounds together the origin and the magnitude
of the displacement. (BTW, year is {nanca}.)

> (this can be adapted for the accuracy of the "three years" down to "at the
> beginning of the past year triad" _ca lepu<INIT>_ or "just before"_puzi_)

And for further accuracy you'd have to say that they are three years of the
*immediate* past, otherwise it could mean "just before the start of the past
year triad 1876-1877-1878".

>         "during the fourth past year" _ze'e lopu vomoi nirne_

(Probably you mean "ze'a" instead of "ze'e", which now is an infinite
time interval.)

> (_nirne co vomoi be la Cac_ to be on the safe side)

{la Cac} is an ordered set of years? Anyway, the ordered set of past years
could well be 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960 in some context (e.g. when talking
about population census (censi?) in the US).

>         Both of these assume that the years are taken as discrete and
> adjacent (not overlapping and not a scattered collection) and in natural
> order.

And also adjacent to the present. Not easy to generalize from "three years
ago" to "three years before the start of the war", which would be
straightforward with a direct system for showing the magnitude of the
displacement.

> This set of assumptions -- presuppositions? implicatures? --
> might even extend to justifying
>         "Before three past years" _pu cipu nirne_, an expression close
> to English and so probably just right for Lojban in length.

That would be "before each of three past years", you'd be splitting the
sentence into describing three events. {pu lei ci pu nanca} would work
for the purpose, I think.

I agree that we can never achieve absolute precision. We know what is
the price of that. But why content ourselves in this case with such
a cludgy solution, when there is a simple and natural way of being far
more precise, at practically no cost, with elements that we already
have in the language?

Currently {zi}, {za} and {zu} have no use as sumti tcita. It is a waste
to have such nice short words for something so abstruse as "some time
to the past or future of...", which in any case if need be can be said
with {pujaba}.

Currently {vi}, {va} and {vu} duplicate the functions of {bu'u}, {ne'a}
and {to'o} (as sumti tcita). No doubt {vi} is useful in that function.
No doubt it is a pity that {bu'u} is not a one-syllable word...

Since ZIs and VAs are magnitudes of the displacement, and what we need
is a way of identifying sumti as the magnitudes of the displacement,
and the function that ZIs and VAs have now as tcita is totally redundant,
I think it is clear that their sumti complement should be the magnitude
of the displacement.

The only practical problem would be {vi}, which is the only one with
a more or less entrenched use. We could simply allow that as a secondary
use (context will make it clear when the sumti can't be taken as a
magnitude), as a substitute for {bu'u}.

Compare the very precise:

        ko'a jbena pu le nunjamna za lei ci nanca
        He was born past of the war, magnitude (medium) three years.
        He was born three years before the war.

with the cludgy and imprecise:

        ko'a jbena pu lei ci nanca be pu le nunjamna
        He was born past of the three years of the past of the war.

The two forms are about the same length, but the second one is
both more imprecise (it could mean several other things) and quite
more inflexible, since "the war" is more deeply embedded.

In summary, I agree that we can fall on "suitably imprecise" forms
to express what we want, and I am not at all against imprecision
in general. But why, when there is a simple way of getting a more
precise and flexible rendering, should we not avail ourselves of it?

Jorge