Message-Id: <199510172335.TAA05171@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 17 Oct 1995 19:27:42 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: perfective counting & katna
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

And:
> > {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.

I'm not sure whether using the rafsi "por" instead of "poi" is anygood,
because {nacporBA'u} could be {na cpo-r-ba'u}, or couldn't it? The "r"
is not necessary there, so I'm not sure if {nacporba'u} would break
or not.

> > Then {nacpoiba'u} is "x1 utters a sequence of numbers ordered by rules
> > x2".
> > {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>".

The irregular ones are {ba'o} and {pu'o}, and I see no reason to
spread their disease to other ZAhO.

> Better is {mi nacpoirbahu tekaa li mu sekaa li pano}, pehipei?

That's much more metaphorical, but also acceptable, I guess.

> Or {mi nacpoirbahu fi li mu li pa no}.

I don't like that one. Very ad-hoc places.

> > > 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?

> > i no'i mi za'onai fapro do joi la goran joi le munje le du'u xukau
> > lo'e katna cu gasnu  (to lu za'onai cu xamgu xelfanva zoi gy no
> > longer gy pe'ipei toi)
>
> pehi juocui gohi. i lu "No longer broda" liu valsi laelu
> "(already) bao broda" liu i se kiu bo ri se valsi lu zaonai liu
> i ma se valsi ro cmima be zo ba'o ce zo ca'o ce zo co'a ce zo co'i
> ce zo co'u ce zo de'a ce zo di'a ce zo mo'u ce zo pu'o beo ceo bae
> zo nai? (to soe cuo suu diu na tergea toi)

I'm not sure what's the answer, but here is a possibility.

There are four kind of aspects that are related: "still", "already",
"no longer" and "not yet".

They could be paraphrased as:

still: happening unexpectedly, because the expected end is in the past
       (i.e. it should no longer be happening).
already: happening unexpectedly, because the expected start is in the
         future (i.e. it should not be happening yet).
not yet: not-happening unexpectedly, because the expected end of the
         not happening is in the past (i.e. it should already be happening)
no longer: not-happening unexpectedly, because the expected start of
           the not-happening is in the future (i.e. it should still
           be happening).

It is clear that they are sort-of negation complements of each other
(much like the A, E, I, O things we discussed with pc).

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'm not sure what {za'onai} is, but it is either "no longer" or
"not yet". (Rather, either {naku za'o} or {za'o naku}.)

Jorge