Message-Id: <199510232139.RAA03022@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 23 Oct 1995 19:37:04 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: perfective counting & katna
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

Jorge:
> > > {nacpoiba'u}.
> > Shd that be {nacpoirbahu}?
> That's what I thought some time ago, but it seems it shouldn't.
> There should be no stress of the first syllables, so there is no
> chance of it breaking appart: nacpoiBA'u
> If you think that it could break down, then things like {brabrabrabra}
> would also be at risk of breaking into {brabra brabra}.
> Lujvo are quite sensitive to stress. It is important not only to
> stress the right syllable, but also NOT to stress the others, or
> there can be problems.

This is right by my reading of the rules. I wonder if any experiments
have been conducted to confirm that in actual use, even under favourable
conditions, the morphology algorithm works. Or maybe noone cares.

> > > > uenai lo dakfu gau la djudit cu katna lo stedu be la xolofernes
> > > i xu lo'e cnebo cu pagbu lo stedu
> > pehi na gohi
> i pau gau la djudit cu katna lo stedu ji lo cnebo?

gau la djudit tahi le katna cu sepstedu xy

> If {za'o} is "still", then:
> {za'o naku} is "not yet" (still not going on)
> {naku za'o} is "no longer" (not still-going-on)
> {naku za'o naku} is "already" (not still-not-going-on)
> "Still" and "already" are duals, and it would be nice to have a cmavo
> for "already".

I agree.

Chris to Xorxes:
> >> > {mi nacpoiba'u} would be "I count (in the usual order)".
> >> >        mi nacpoiba'u co'a li mu co'u li pano
> >> >        I count from five to ten.
> >>
> >> That means "I count at the inception of 5 and at the cessation of 10".
> >Not according to Nick's usage, which I like very much in this respect.
> >{co'a} and {co'u} behave well as tcita, like any other non-ZAhO tense
> >and any BAI: essentially <selbri> <tag> <sumti> has the same kind of
> >meaning of <tag> <selbri> but with greater precision as to the effect
> >of the tag. {co'a <sumti>} is "starting at <sumti>", and {co'u <sumti>}
> >is "stopping at <sumti>".

Is this really true? For {ca, ba, pu} they stay the same as sumtcita
only because if there's no explicit sumti a {dei} is presumed. [My
formulation, not official.]

> Up till now I have been using And's method, which I think is what's
> recommended in the reference grammars.

It's not my method. It's the one in John's Tense paper, at least in
the version sent out 3 or 4 years ago. I found it odd.

> However, there's a problem with it:
>  mi co'a citka le plise  --> I start eating the apple
> should be the same as:
>  mi co'a ku citka le plise
> and therefore
>  mi citka le plise co'a ku
> and therefore
>  mi citka le plise co'a da ku

But {coa citka} is a kind of tanru. {coa} alters the meaning of
the selbri, like {toe} but unlike, say, {na} or {pu}. I agree with
you both as far as {na} and {pu} are concerned, but see little
basis for deciding what the meaning of ZAHO as sumtcita shd be.

> For once I'm going to be a non-stick-in-the-mud and say I like this
> much better than what I believe the official version to be. Selbri
> tcita ought to be consistently considered shorthand for sumti tcita.

If and only if the selbri tcita is derivable from/paraphrasable by/
abbreviation for the sumti tcita.

---
And