From - Wed Feb 14 12:52:58 1996 Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id BAA25233 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 01:30:37 -0500 Message-Id: <199602140630.BAA25233@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id F15340C0 ; Wed, 14 Feb 1996 0:54:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 00:55:03 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals To: topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR Cc: lojbab@access4.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: O X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3055 >> I believe that the omission of this feature from the current >> language is just an oversight; I think it would be in there if whoever >> made the system had remembered they were needed. > >That's exactly what I'm saying. It really ought to be there already. It is >a gap, an oversight, and people kept glancing over it. As to whether it is an omission from the tense design of the language, one would have to ask pc about that. It seems clear from zi/za/zu that JCB never thought about someone wanting to make the distance specific. BUT JCB is also wont to coin usages on the spot with no particular logical system to them, so he might use za+interval to expresss a distance one time, and something else a different time and he would never notice (and if anyone called him on it, it would be by private mail and he needn't admit that he was wrong). As to whether it is needed - I will trust Goran that it is. Whether we can/cannot use existing constructs in the language to achieve the intent satisfactorily - that is the question. I have suggested a couple of possibilities. It occurs to me to suggest one more: fi'o + distance + appropriate lujvo (for time after/time before and any variety of space intervals. This would fit the current standard, which is that anything that cannot be easily expressed in the current tense and BAI grammar should be added using fi'o (an old jimc invention BTW). Our intent of course was that anything that turned out to be Zipfeanly too long for fi'o would eventually be shortened. I like this way other than the existing proposals because a) I am not sure Try that agin: I like this way other than the existing proposals because under the existing proposals, it is unclear that both a) all cases where specific intervals are needed are covered AND (at the same time) b) the specifying of the interval is clear as to direction or other parameters. To make for example, the NOI proposal general enough, as in Veijo's last version, you have a relative clause, and nothing is all that clear as to where the "ke'a" is in the relative clause, OR what the ke'a stands for. Thus "za noi nanca lipimu ..." you could not put any of the standard KOhA in the x1 of nanca, and have it be clear. You have to deduce or declare a convention that a time interval there is a time interval distance. There is no way to make thius precisely clear. And unfortunately, I can easily envision that a construct like Veijo's latest version (was it mod_head+ relative clause?) is so potentially flexible that people will invariably find all sorts of interesting things to put in that relative clause, with some inevitable semantic collision. Cowan is analyzing the problem, and will give his views when he is ready. possibly after consulting with pc. Until either or both of them speak up, I am going to try to minimize this thread. It is accepted that Goran sees a problem and that we should discuss the problem in the refgrammar, and present a solution. lojbab