Message-Id: <199510011119.HAA25378@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 1 Oct 1995 00:19:54 -0600
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject:      Re: tense conversions
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>This would be much
>better than the current approach which I've seen in the various
>introductory papers and lessons, which is to ignore tense because it is
>(initially) too complex.  In fact, nearly every example in these materials
>is incorrect because they assume a tense (usually present) that isn't
>actually there,

I don't think that's true.  The tense in lojban is supposed to be implied by
the context most of the time, not stated explicitly in every sentence with
tense particles.  So out of context (as in a textbook example) "I went" and
"I go" are both equally correct guesses as to the translation of "mi klama".

>and that is going to be very misleading in the long run...
>the student will have to unlearn the habit of forming tenseless bridi with
>the expectation that they are using the present tense.

I see your point, but what can we do about it?  If we insist on inserting
tense into all the lojban examples "mi ca klama le zarci .ije mi ca te vecnu
loi nanba", then we get stilted, stylistically incorrect lojban.  If we
don't insert tense, the English translations will necessarily have to assume
one, because of the nature of English.  I think we just have to tell the
students to watch out for this pitfall, and try to vary the English tense
that translates the bare selbri, to keep the students from forgetting that
point.
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.net/cbogart/html/homepage.html
 Quetzal Consulting   \/   cbogart@quetzal.com