Message-Id: <199501221924.AA01212@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Sun, 22 Jan 1995 14:26:22 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: ago (LONG and la'a incorrect :))
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

Goran:
> to'o      FAhA4    away from point
>                    location tense relation/direction;
>                    departing from/directly away from ...

"departing from" and "directly away from" mean different things. The
first requires movement, and that is what {mo'i} supposedly is there for.

The "normal" FAhAs (essentially all but fa'a) indicate a direction from
an origin:

be'a    north of...         ne'u   south of...
du'a    east of...          vu'a   west of...
ca'u    in front of...      ti'a   behind...
ga'u    above...            ni'a   below...
ri'u    on the right of...  zu'a   on the left of...
ne'i    within...           ru'u   surrounding...

bu'u    coincident with...
re'o    in contact with...
ne'a    next to...
to'o    away from...

pa'o    transfixing...
te'e    bordering...

zo'a    tangential to...  Is this very different from {re'o}?

Each of the above indicates a position with respect to an origin.

The remaining FAhAs are {ze'o}, {zo'i}, and {fa'a}.

ze'o    outward of...
zo'i    inward of...

These two also need a "reference", but they seem to me to be compound
tenses: {to'ofa'a} and {ne'ifa'a}, "towards the away of..." and "towards
the inside of..."

Why do these two get special words, and for example {ga'ufa'a}, "towards
the above of..." = "upward", doesn't?

Anyway, the only FAhA that is somewhat strange is {fa'a}, because it
seems to refer to the orientation of the event, rather than the
position of the event.

> ju'ocu'i pe'i FAhA4 is semantically a bit different from other FAhA:
>
> fa'a               arriving at/directly towards
> to'o               directly away/departing from
> ze'o               outward/receding from
> zo'a               tangential to/passing by
> zo'i               inward/approaching from
>
> I can't imagine them not stating direction, or what you think what
> each of {fa'a/to'o/ze'o/zo'a/zo'i le ckule} means.

fa'a le ckule
facing towards the school.

ze'o le ckule = to'ofa'a le ckule
facing away from the school.

zo'i le ckule = ne'ifa'a le ckule
facing inside the school.

zo'a le ckule =? re'o le ckule
tangential to/adjacent to/in contact with the school.

to'o le ckule
away from the school.

The only ones that have the event "facing" somewhere are {fa'a} and the
two that are really compounds with fa'a. Another example could be:

zu'afa'a le ckule
facing to the left of the school.


> BTW, see note at
> the bottom of the tense paper, where is says about {to'o} referring
> to a ba'e direction relative to speaker/current origin.

All the FAhAs are directions relative to speaker/current origin.
But directions for the positions of the event, not the way the
event faces.

I never understood that comment about zo'i and ze'o not being like that.
Can you explain? That seems inconsistent with the "inward/outward"
interpretation of zo'i/ze'o.

> >         lei verba cu kelci ru'u le ckule
>
> zo'opaunai how many children's
> games do you know that take enough place to surround the school without
> the building bothering them?

They could be playing "hide and seek", for example. Or they could be playing
different games, nobody says that they all have to be playing together.


> > > much less "The children are playing 30 metres
> > > from the school".
> >
> >         lei verba cu kelci to'o le ckule va lei cino mitre
>
> That goes back on the {to'o} discussion, I won't get into that again here...

If you insist that {to'o} implies facing away, I can change it to:

        lei verba cu kelci ne'a le ckule va lei cino mitre


> co'o mi'e. goran noi ckire la xorxes. leka zanru

co'o mi'e xorxes noi ckire la goran le nu ckire