From sentto-44114-14988-1028931865-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Aug 09 15:24:59 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.80]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17dIBl-0004MY-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:24:57 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14988-1028931865-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.201] by n24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Aug 2002 22:24:26 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 9 Aug 2002 22:24:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 48254 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2002 22:24:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2002 22:24:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 22:24:26 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.197.b2ac225 (2612) for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <197.b2ac225.2a859b11@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:24:17 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni though this particular line should be something else) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_197.b2ac225.2a859b11_boundary" X-archive-position: 518 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_197.b2ac225.2a859b11_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [pc dramatically slaps forehead with heel of right hand and mutters things in non-native languages] I'm so used to thinking that whatever xorxes says that is not totally crazy (from the point of standardized Lojban) is right that I missed it when he said something only slightly off: << Spatial tenses give the location of the event, in this case the event of wearing. >> referring to {ko'a dasni le boxfo vi le birka janco} But {vi le birka janco} is not a spatial tense but a rather a tense marker in its use as a sumti tcita, as though it were BAI. Thus, as xorxes notes later, << pc>{be} is harder, since >officially it makes {le birka janco} occupy a place in the structure of >{boxfo} (a place not usually there, to be sure) and the exact relation of >that place to the rest of the structure is unspecified. It does seem to be >more intimate than {ne}, but not obviously restrictive like {pe}. {be} makes what follows a part of the description, so it has to be restrictive. >> it adds a place to the main selbri, in this case {dasni}, saying where the object2 is worn. So we need not go into the question (enchanting as it is) of where events occur (I don't take back what I said about that, though). We do have a question about distinguishing tense usage from pseudo-BAI usage perhaps, but I suspect that there is rarely any conflict or damagiing confusion (the difference in these cases is largely Gricean, in short). --part1_197.b2ac225.2a859b11_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [pc dramatically slaps forehead with heel of right hand and mutters things in non-native languages]
I'm so used to thinking that whatever xorxes says that is not totally crazy (from the point of standardized Lojban) is right that I missed it when he said something only slightly off:

<<
Spatial tenses give the location of the event,
in this case the event of wearing.
>>
referring to {ko'a dasni le boxfo vi le birka janco}

But {vi le birka janco} is not a spatial tense but a rather a tense marker in its use as a sumti tcita, as though it were BAI. Thus, as xorxes notes later,
<<
pc>{be} is harder, since
>officially it makes {le birka janco} occupy a place in the structure of
>{boxfo} (a place not usually there, to be sure) and the exact relation of
>that place to the rest of the structure is unspecified. It does seem to be
>more intimate than {ne}, but not obviously restrictive like {pe}.

{be} makes what follows a part of the description, so it has
to be restrictive.
>>
it adds a place to the main selbri, in this case {dasni}, saying where the object2 is worn.

So we need not go into the question (enchanting as it is) of where events occur (I don't take back what I said about that, though).

We do have a question about distinguishing tense usage from pseudo-BAI usage perhaps, but I suspect that there is rarely any conflict or damagiing confusion (the difference in these cases is largely Gricean, in short).

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_197.b2ac225.2a859b11_boundary--