Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 15:14:37 -0500 (EST)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: ago
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HLUKUR5NKY000FY0@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 4265
Lines: 120

coi rodo

mi xruti i mi facki le du'u ji'imuno selmri cu denpa le nu mi tcidu
i pamai mi dunda lei mi re fepni sera'a le du'u tai makau jarno
le kambra be le'e selku'e

Djer:
> On the wordiness question, dare I mention yet another experimental
> cmavo?  Would a word for "ago" really rent the fabric of lojban?

And:
> Yes, it would. "Ago" means "before now", as, I think, does "ba" when
> it has no overt complement. So "ago" = intransitive ba.
>
> Sorry. For "ba", read "pu".

I don't think a new word is needed, but "pu" doesn't really help.
"Ago" means "before now" but it always comes after a measure of
time, so it means more than "puku", which cannot be complemented with
a time length.

"X ago" means "a length of time X before now". I think that the most
natural way to do this in Lojban is with "za", which is precisely that:
a length of time.

Consider:

        mi pu za ze'a tcidu
        I <past> <a while ago> <for a while> read.

To make the interval of reading more specific, we say:

        mi pu za tcidu ze'a le cacra
        I <past> <a while ago> read <for an hour>.

Similarly, I think that the way to make the offset more specific is:

        mi pu ze'a tcidu za le cacra
        I <past> <for a while> read <an hour ago>.

We can also add a starting point different from "now":

        mi tcidu pu le nu do klama kei za le cacra ze'a le cacra
        I read for an hour, one hour before you came.

So, in my opinion, there is already a word for "ago" in Lojban
(actually three words: zi, za and zu) but instead of coming after
the time length like in English, it comes before it. (Also, it can
be used for the future equivalent of "ago", which in English doesn't
have a single word: "from now".)

I think that the tense paper says that "za <sumti>" means "a while
before/after <sumti>", but I don't think that is very useful, and
a way of clearly specifying the length of the offset is necessary.

The exact same thing happens with spatial tenses.

Iain:
> How _do_ we say "The window is three metres to the left of the door"?

I would say:

        le canko cu zvati zu'a le vorme va lei ci mitre

(If you don't like {lei ci mitre}, then {le mitre be li ci} or
{li ci poi mitre ke'a} are equally usable.)


Djer:
> I predict that the problem will not go away. I think it is unrealistic
> to have awkward and prolix expressions for frequently used concepts. As
> you know, the reason some expressions are short is their high
> frequency.

I agree. And I haven't seen any way of expressing "ago" other than using
"temci" as the main selbri, but that seems a bit too drastic. It's not
just a matter of conciseness, there should be a clear way of specifying
offset lengths.

> Well, with pc, Cowan, and lojbab opposed, what else can I say?  I'm
> beginning to miss jorge's support.

Well, I'm back!  :)

John:
>         ko cadzu mo'ica'uvi .i mo'iri'uvi .i mo'iri'uvi .i mo'iri'uvi
>
> Here we have four different sentences, of which the first unambiguously
> means "March forward!".

What exactly does {mo'i} mean? I would have said {ko fa'aca'u cadzu} for
"March forward!". {cadzu} already has in itself the idea of movement, so
I don't see what {mo'i} adds. Does {mo'i} show just motion or direction
of motion?

> The next three sentences are just tenses, but
> can be understand as elliptically repeating the preceding bridi; you could
> introduce a "go'i" to make the logical structure clear, although "go'ira'o"
> might be better.

And what would {fa'ari'u} instead of {mo'iri'u} mean?

> I note that drill orders in English generally take the form of an order,
> which is not acted on, followed by a pause, followed by an execution word,
> which is often the verb of the order, e.g. "Dress right ... dress!"
> In Lojban, this could be represented by:
>
>         cadzu mo'ica'uzi . ko!

I suppose you meant to have an {i} there.

If you order the lojbo squad to march towards the right, they might do
so without first facing right, no? So first you have to order them to
face right. My attempt is {le pritu [be do] ko crane}, but the doubt is,
when is {le pritu} evaluated? Does this mean "make it such that you are
facing towards what is now your left", or "make it such that you will
be facing what will be then your left"?

Jorge