From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:47:14 2010 From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: selbri as sumti Date: Tue Mar 28 00:22:36 1995 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Mar 28 00:22:36 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: la djan cusku di'e > la xorxes. cusku di'e > > My > > brushing my teeth today is a recurrence of my brushing my teeth > > yesterday, but not of someone else's brushing their teeth, or me > > brushing something else, or anything like that. > > Why not? These are simply recurrences along different dimensions, like > the recurrence of street lamps on a street (one every 5m, or whatever). > Admittedly, the tense system only handles spatial and temporal dimensions, > not {prenu} or {burcu se lumci} dimensions, but the full predicate grammar > can cope. Yes, that's what I concluded in the next paragraph. I'm not disagreeing, just that that says that everything is a recurrence of everything else. A mosquito and an elephant are both recurrences of {da}, perhaps the 51st and 2764th recurrences? It depends on how you order things. Since krefu has a place for the position but not for the dimension (and I hope nobody decides to add one) I think it is reasonable to expect that the only thing that changes from one occurrence to the next is the time. (The word "again" in the definition much suggests this.) For ordering in any arbitrary dimension, there is already {moi}, it seems more useful to limit {krefu} to repetitions in time. I think that at least pragmatically this will be the case. Jorge