From mbays@freeshell.org Fri Oct 10 16:47:39 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhc90.chch.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.237.90] helo=thedave.homelinux.org ident=0) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A86yp-00063N-0I for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:47:31 -0700 Received: from thedave.homelinux.org (IDENT:1001@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thedave.homelinux.org (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h9B0kpsK001466 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:46:52 GMT Received: from localhost (martin@localhost) by thedave.homelinux.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Submit) with ESMTP id h9B0kps1001463 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:46:51 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: thedave.homelinux.org: martin owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:46:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Bays X-X-Sender: martin@thedave.homelinux.org To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Tenses (was: Re: consolation) In-Reply-To: <20031008200733.16893.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 6413 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mbays@freeshell.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list (excuse delay - have moved, been internetless) cu'u la xorxes. zo'u > la maten cusku di'e > > > We can make complicated tenses by joining basic ones with cmavo from JOI - > > cf. section 21. So first, let's define a JOI, JOI1, which works like this > > when connecting tenses - > > {Tense1 JOI1 Tense2} -- "Tense1 applied to (i.e. > > with event contours referring to) the event given by application > > of Tense2" > > In fact, in selbri tcita position, you can already achieve any order > of tenses you like by joining them with {ja'a}, so you don't even need > JOI1. Sure, I was just (clumsily) trying to develop a formalish theory of what such constructions might mean. > > > So e.g. {mi pu zu ze'u pu'o JOI1 ba zi co'a le nu badri cu gleki} would > > mean "I for (a long time centered on a distant past point and contained > > before the soon start of sadness) was/am happy". > > It is not clear that {co'a le nu badri} should mean "start of sadness" > rather than "starting at sadness". For some discussion of this, see: > http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=81 > I can see both interpretations of ZAhO as sumtcita make sense, but (1) is the one I've always understood. Also, I'd suggest the usage of ba'o/pu'o as sumtcita with (1) is more frequent than (and so trumps) the usage of co'a/co'u with (2). Isn't it? > See also: > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Internal+grammar+of+tags Hmmm. I don't know about this idea of flattening out the tense grammar. As it stands, the grammatical structure more or less reflects the semantic structure - which I'd have thought was a Very Good Thing. Tenses refer to something as concrete and tractable as subsets of space-time - so surely we ought to be able to formulate a nice formal semantics for them, with the grammar corresponding. What I'm saying is - if you want to allow tenses which don't fit in to the imaginary journey model then fine - but I for one won't be happy until a theory giving them a definite, explicit meaning is developed. > > > CLL: > > > >>12.12) loi snime cu carvi > > > >> ze'u le ca dunra > > > >> some-of-the-mass-of snow rains > > > >> [long time interval] the [present] winter. > > > >> Snow falls during this winter. > > > > > > > But according to section 12, a sumtcita tense defines an interval using > > the normal imaginary journeys system, but with the seltcita sumti as > > starting point. > > CLL:"The remaining tense cmavo, which have to do with interval size, > dimension, and continuousness (or lack thereof) are interpreted to let > the sumti specify the particular interval over which the main bridi > operates" > > The seltcita sumti specifies the interval. Shit. You're right. You know how you can read something, repeatedly, without really reading it - because you *know* what it says? Or you think you do. My sincere apologies for earlier accusing you of CLL-heresy - really rather rude of me, thinking about it, as well as wrong. OK, I no longer understand tenses as sumtcita. I thought I did, but it seems I was wrong. So how does this work with a full tense rather than just a fragment of one? What would {loi snima cu carvi pu zi ze'a ba'o le ca dunra} mean, for instance? mu'o mi'e maten.