From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:57:34 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 6509 invoked from network); 28 Jan 1997 05:46:44 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 28 Jan 1997 05:46:44 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <12.7B7EE7F0@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 6:46:41 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:29:50 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: A question about space tenses X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1579 Lines: 32 Message-ID: >As far as (1) goes, the baselined refgrammar isn't decisive. It has >no examples using fa'a or to'o, and the short definitions it gives >--More-- >can be interpreted either way. The definition lojbab gave is also >ambiguous, and though the explanation he gives obviously refers to >the location definition, I think it would be worth going back to >the original orientation one. (The origin of fa'a is from farna, >clearly, and that is even in the refgrammar.) The etymology is from farna indeed, with the presumed meaning "in the direction of" which seems locative, rather than "facing" which is orientative, I don;lt think we ever considered an orientative tense. We did something with BAI, I think to allow stating an orientation, but I cannot remember what it was. The main argument for locative interpretation is indeed that of the refgrammar, since the whole "Imaginary Journeys" metaphor is locative i in paradigm. >As for (2), I'm not overly concerned, since I dislike both >possibilities. Making mo'i show the movement of one sumti is >inconsistent with how the rest of the tenses work. Making it >show the movement of the whole event (in an airplane, train, >elevator, or whatever) is rather silly. It is not something >that I would want to specially grammaticalize. So I am not >likely to be using mo'i in any case. (The refgrammar in this >case has examples for each of both interpretations.) In which case things are ambiguous. But I would presume that showing motion in a sumti would be done using "pe" or "ne" rather than with a tense on the bridi. lojbab