Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA11897 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 13:28:18 +0200 Message-Id: <199602111128.NAA11897@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id E30BE3B0 ; Sun, 11 Feb 1996 12:28:18 +0100 Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 12:21:17 +0100 Reply-To: Goran Topic Sender: Lojban list From: Goran Topic Subject: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 3779 Lines: 88 > >His proposal most certainly amounts to innovation, and not mere > >usage conventions. > > Innovation in Lojban means new cmavo, gismu, grammar. Since he proposes > a new MOI, I guess that part is "innovation". New conventions are > semantics arguments, which I would ignore were it not for the likelihood that > they will end up in the refgrammar. All that matters to me is that we have > *A* way to express it. "How good" is a questions that "usage will decide". All that matters is that we have *A* way to express it? We still have no way of expressing exact intervals short of using {temci} or {tersei}, which is way too long - and I miss it much more than fuzziness. There are two proposals, but there was never any arbitration (as far as I remember). So I thought I could remind you, again, hoping that one of the proposals could get accepted before the baseline. If not, I would like arguments against both, and a counterproposal, because I feel I really need this construct. These proposals were argued just between xorxes and me, with an occasional comment from somebody else, and I never heard an official ruling. I am not very comfortable with YACC or BNF, so I am afraid I cannot write a formal proposal. But, this is as good as I can do it: 1. VA/ZI Change the meaning of VA/ZI cmavo as sumti tcita so that + no longer means " from " but " which is " Positive: requires *no* new cmavo. Negative: redefines the meaning of existing cmavo, and makes corpus archaic; inherent subjective judgment of the length of the interval Examples: mi baza pa jetfu cu cliva Currently: I will leave a medium time from a one-week event Would be: I will leave in a week, which is a medium time ko'a kelci be'a lo ckule va lo ki'omitre Currently: They play north of the sch., med dist. from 1km thing Would be: They play 1 km north from the school. 2. xe'i (with asperations of te'i-hood) New cmavo; I do not know which selma'o, but it needs to combine freely with tenses. Meaning of {xe'i } should be " distance/interval". xe'i could be taken to signify only temporal distance, and let fe'exe'i take care of the spatial ones, or could signify distance in space-time (type of sumti decides which it is, like xe'i lo mitre is clearly spatial, and xe'i lo nanca is clearly temporal). Positive: does not change the corpus Negative: requires 1 new cmavo (the proficient in YACC grammar need to tell me if a new selma'o is also required) Examples: mi bate'i jetfu cu cliva Currently: undefined Would be: I will leave in a week. ko'a kelci be'a lo ckule [fe'e]xe'i lo ki'omitre Currently: undefined Would be: They play 1 km north from the school. So, please, tell me what will it be: 0da, 1moi, 2moi or 3moi no'u ma. Anything except 0da will satisfy me. I *need* such a mechanism, and I believe this should be expressible within the tense system. It ba'e belongs into the tense system. I hate writing lenu mi pu klama la glazgov. cu temci lo cabna lo nanca belipimu when I can say mi klama la glazgov. puxe'i lo nanca belipimu or mi klama la glazgov. puza lo nanca belipimu It is not a question of extra 6-7 syllables. It is a matter of principle. ta'o, this was rauroi written in lojban... I thought it might be time to set it forth in English. Details left to the expert community to work out. I am being boring, I know. But I *need* cai this. Really. co'o mi'e. goran.