Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 03:42:03 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: to'o
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HM7VLCIKUE000TJM@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2084
Lines: 42

>la lojbab cusku di'e
>
>> As to the underlying issue, I would consider it a substantive change to
>> make VA/ZA have anything to do with precise distance.  The Lojban tense
>> system is intentionally (or is that intensionally zo'o) imprecise.
>
>Allowing the complement of VA/ZI to be a magnitude in no way affects
>the imprecision of the tense system. It only allows to be precise when
>needed. Or is the intention that we can never be precise?

No, my statement is that there is too much usage to have such a chhange be
acceptasble.

But pc has often said that it is impossible to come up with a tense
system that can "do anything".  Maybe a fi'o-based BAI tag would work.>> If I
 read it correctly, "vi le ckule zu'a(vi/va?) lo mitre be li cino"
>> should mean 30 meters left of the school, if Cowan doesn't contradict me
>> on how we interpret such a multiple tense-tagged sumti.
>
>What?!!! Why would you give the magnitude to the direction marker and the
>direction to the magnitude marker? And in the normal order direction
>comes first and then magnitude, (zu'ava), but as tcita you are giving
>first the magnitude (va) and then the direction (zu'a). That seems like
>a very complicated system.

The tense system we have now is real complex.  I just read out of the grammar
and use that to try to recall what we meant by the pieces.  "offset" seems
pretty obvious though, and the FAhAs were put in to give offsets.
But I would have to think about thinsg much more than I have to remember
how the nitty gritty pieces go together.  They do follow the Imaginary
Journey paradigm, but IO think compound tenses is not an area Cowan went to
great lengths on in his paper.

I can't at this time spend more time looking at what more might need
explanation in this.  I agree that many languages are going to have
modal-phrase indicatuions of exact distance, but am not sure that we need
to have them be efficient, as long as they can be clear.  And I think the
Englissh use of suchh ophrases iss NOT as clear as any Lojban formulation that
attempts to be exact, will achieve.

lojbab