From - Tue Feb 20 15:00:52 1996 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id HAA08712 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 07:01:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199602161201.HAA08712@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 633042CF ; Fri, 16 Feb 1996 6:28:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 06:26:03 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: sera'aku GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2604 >Is that an official position? Last time I asked nobody knew how to take >a sumti tagged by {puba'o}, for example. Is it governed by {pu} or by {ba'o}? >(Since the rules for those two are utterly different, the two choices give >drastically different meanings.) From what you say here, I take it that >it is governed by {pu}, is that right? I personally have never tried to state the rules. Perhaps Cowan has in the refgrammar. I just know that given a sentence with puba'o I WILL come up with an interpretation, as I will for most grammatical Lojban. I am not so stuck on my opinions as to call my interpretation "official" just because it comes from the mouth/keyboard of Lojbab. But there are some interpretations I cannot get, and puza with za governing is one of them. In other words give me a sentence and I will make a ruling based on MY instincts, but whether it is "official" I won't say. >My interpretation has always been the one given by Don, by the way. >I interpret {pu za } the same as {puza} as a selbri >tcita, only with added precision in the origin and the size of the shift. That is a possible interpretation, but it also has never been official, and I have never contemplated the possible idiosyncrasies that order might cause. I would have thoughtt that {pu za } meant the same as {za pu } without thinking about whether "puza" means the same as "zapu" I am NOT a big fan of transformational Lojban - saying that two different grammatical structures are semantically equal - this should be clear by my unwilingness anymore to see "re broda" be locked into "re lo broda" with no implication of specificity, definiteness while having veridicality. I just don;t see the naturalistic form as implying much of anything about logical properties. We also have "naku" which is NOT the same as "na" necessarily, and does have order considerations. We have had some discussions, but I can;t remember to what decision, about whether a "pu le broda" as a sumti before the a selbri that is explicitly tensed means the same as one that is after, but I cannot remeber which - i.e. Is "mi pu broda" the same as puku mi broda or mi puku broda, where there may or may not be a difference if a tense is umm tensed sumti, is attached before or after the puku. In other words, there is a lot of stuff we haven;t talked about, which may or may not be in Imaginary JOurneys, probably SHOULD be if we can reach and agreement, but we may or may not have the time to fully analyze the issues. lojbab