From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:46:13 2010
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Sun Dec 10 14:09:18 1995
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X6: Simplification of compound
              tenses
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Dec 10 14:09:18 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Message-ID: <aWXbbOqNHqH.A.7-F.1u0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

CHANGE X6


PRESENT LANGUAGE:

> time<1030> = ZI & time-offset ... & ZEhA [PU [NAI]] & interval-modifier
>
> time-offset<1033> = PU [NAI] [ZI]
>
> interval-modifier<1050> = interval-property & [(ZAhO [interval-property]) ...]
>
> interval-property<1051> = number ROI [NAI] | TAhE [NAI]


PROPOSED CHANGE:

> time = ZI & time-offset ... & aspect ...
>
> time-offset = PU [NAI] [ZI]
>
> aspect = ZEhA [PU [NAI]] | ZAhO | number ROI [NAI] | TAhE [NAI]


RATIONALE:

There is no apparent reason to restrict the compounding of the aspectuals
to only those combinations allowed in the current grammar. The remaining
combinations make just as much sense.

Besides, those other combinations are already possible using the tense
glue "nana". For example:

        mi ta'e ze'a bajra
        I usually run for long times.

is not allowed, or rather {ta'e ze'a} parses as {ta'e ku ze'a} instead
of as a single tag. But this more complex form is allowed:

        mi ta'e nana ze'a bajra

where {ta'e nana ze'a} is a compound tag. The two {na}s cancel each
other out in meaning, but they can't be removed syntactically, so they
are effectively functioning as glue. (That's a very weird feature, that
should in my opinion be removed, but it shows that all the proposed new
combinations already exist under a complicated guise.)


NOTE1: This change is an extension. It does not affect any existing
grammatical text.


NOTE2: I agree with And that aspectuals should really be like NAhEs,
that attach to brivla rather than to a whole selbri. This applies
to all of them, not just the ZAhOs. For example, we could have:

        ko'a citno ba'o ralju
        He is a young ex-president.

        ko'a ba'o citno ralju
        He is an ex-young president.

        ko'a ba'o ke citno ralju
        He is an ex young-president.

        ko'a ta'e gleki reroi ralju
        He is a usually-happy two-times-president.

        ko'a roroi gleki ze'u citno co'a ralju
        He is an always-happy long-time-young starting-president.

etc, etc. But this is left for another proposal. For the moment I would
just like to set ZEhAs, ZAhOs and TAhEs on an equal footing. I don't
see why the current grammar for compound tenses takes such pains to be
complicated.

A bonus of this proposal is that it simplifies teaching, which is one of
the criteria that Lojbab gave for good changes.

NOTE3: A similar change would of course apply to space tenses. The
current grammar:

> space<1040> = VA & space-offset ... & space-interval & (MOhI space-offset)
>
> space-offset<1045> = FAhA [NAI] [VA]
>
> space-interval<1046> = ((VEhA & VIhA) [FAhA [NAI]]) & FEhE interval-modifier

would go to something like:

> space = VA & space-offset ... & space-aspect & (MOhI space-offset)
>
> space-offset = FAhA [NAI] [VA]
>
> space-aspect = ((VEhA & VIhA) [FAhA [NAI]]) & FEhE aspect ...


Jorge