From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARCUzqLlBBoEj7sIhQ@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 03 08:54:14 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P2Qt6-0003bV-TA; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:54:14 -0700 Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29sf2059926qyk.16 for ; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:54:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=tJPDSQueVSJ4Iw17eo2wJJH0a6ZEcPg5ODHkFQNe92Y=; b=m3D8BKVQW/RvgNvFDk71lrqVsSsiwRUsCiBaoOIwcUYzsmmuImF3M7m46f1JXo7zmE Ldr9WZc5WRd/sK8dUDiCjtaIUG5N993SIZ3RU2jy100ocCHof/qg2y9qse/AqM7bcc5Y DhC2LtT2cN2q9GwFrfviWVq3UZ5Qz70Br6oRU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=muP5qCzPnoA8QvX6nPxcxYx2wUw+lN0HAG9FhHxniJL7jZIwa7lECD+qcyrnyQ5xrW 4lrFvyoB/94za7O+YS6tms2g53CCukTYC5IbBc8k/Wk8LmCfHesosVTm9GY+ZwXpYooQ 1Z/CLT3QYP66vlbveKgFmdZoSlj4idWRrSxSs= Received: by 10.229.34.72 with SMTP id k8mr602717qcd.27.1286121236841; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:53:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.177.9 with SMTP id bg9ls521069qcb.1.p; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.247.206 with SMTP id md14mr2120931qcb.6.1286121236153; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.247.206 with SMTP id md14mr2120930qcb.6.1286121236110; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com (mail-qy0-f174.google.com [209.85.216.174]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y27si2138020qce.6.2010.10.03.08.53.55; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.174; Received: by mail-qy0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 36so1652236qyk.5 for ; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:53:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.122.203 with SMTP id m11mr5880498qar.191.1286121232598; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.92.2 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:53:52 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] A pro-sumti for PU? From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f8e5c213508f50491b86fad --00c09f8e5c213508f50491b86fad Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can you explain the use of {ku} to do something other than terminating LE? = I haven't seen this before, outside of this case with PU, which I had thought was somehow anomalous (which was one of the reasons I came up with this idea). Some example sentences: ca ja'u mi klama lo zarci "I am going to a store at this moment" is the obvious example, which can apparently be done equivalently with {nau}: nau ku mi klama lo zarci The other example that {nau} can't do is using {ja'u} as an argument, which I can't immediately think of a good example for, but: lo broda ku brode ja'u would be grammatical. This is more exact as a usage than {lo cabna be dei}, in that it doesn't point to one or more things simultaneous with the utterance, but rather to the time that the utterance is made itself. It might be more useful, now that I think about it, to have a conversion from tenses to time sumti, so that one could point at the present moment vi= a a conversion from {nau}, as well as assign other times via conversion of th= e other things in PU. I haven't thought very hard about the grammar here (I don't even know if there's a selma'o for this) but (using {ja'u} since it i= s actually fairly hard to find a free CV'V): .i ja'u pu zo'e [ku?] goi ko'a mi klama lo zarci .i ba ko'a mi klama lo zdani "At an earlier time (ko'a) I went to a store). After that, I {tense relativ= e to the present not specified} go to a house." I am fairly sure this doesn't work, because there is now this sumti in the sentence that isn't an argument of the selbri and I'm not using fi'o, and a= t least one other problem, but something like this could probably work. {zo'e} could then in theory be replaced there by something filling the {ja'u} role I originally thought of. Thanks for the responses; learning some of the misconceptions I based this on were misconceptions was helpful. mu'o mi'e latros. 2010/10/3 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Latro wrote: > > My first post on the big jboste .ui > > > > Frequently this equivalence is used: > > caku mi broda =3D=3D mi ca broda > > and similar such things with PU. > > They are basically equivalent, yes, at least in such simple cases. You > have to be careful when you move it over negations, quantifiers, etc. > > > But {ku} isn't terminating anything > > in LE, so this doesn't really make sense. > > KU has two distinct uses in the grammar: > > term -> (tag | FA) [KU] | NA KU > > and: > > sumti -> (LA | LE | quantifier) selbri [KU] > > this may be seen as overloading, but that's how it's always beeen. > (Notice that the KU after NA is not elidable.) > > So KU does not just terminate LE. It can also terminate LA or > quantifier plus selbri (which is similar to terminating LE, since the > result is a sumti, or it can make a term out of a tag or NA (or FA, > which is weird but grammatical). > > > At the same time we want to > > be able to quickly say "now" or "later" without being constrained to > > putting the tense before the selbri. The simplest way would be to > > simply use {zo'e}, which is actually what I thought was going on with > > {caku} and the lot. > > If you mean "ca zo'e", yes, it's semantically pretty much equivalent > to "ca ku", but syntactically that is not what's going on. "ca zo'e" > does not have any omitted terminator. > > > But this isn't especially precise; we should be > > able to point at "the present moment" more easily and precisely, and > > also be able to talk about it in terms of more than just tenses. > > The tense for "here-and-now" is "nau". > > Talking about the present is different form situating some event in > the present. For talking about the present you would have to use "lo > cabna", or maybe "lo cabna be dei" for more precision. That's > something you can use to fill an argument slot, and so you can say > something about it. > > > So why not give it a pro-sumti? The first CV'V I could find was {ja'u} > > (I was very surprised to find some of the CV'V that already exist; > > {ga'o} is a prominent example); why not use that? > > > > The short version of this: > > Proposal: {ja'u}: pro-sumti; the present moment relative to the > > speaker. > > Example sentence? > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --00c09f8e5c213508f50491b86fad Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can you explain the use of {ku} to do something other than terminating LE? = I haven't seen this before, outside of this case with PU, which I had t= hought was somehow anomalous (which was one of the reasons I came up with t= his idea).

Some example sentences:
ca ja'u mi klama lo za= rci
"I am going to a store at this moment"
is= the obvious example, which can apparently be done equivalently with {nau}:=
nau ku mi klama lo zarci

The other example th= at {nau} can't do is using {ja'u} as an argument, which I can't= immediately think of a good example for, but:
lo broda ku brode = ja'u
would be grammatical. This is more exact as a usage than {lo cabna be = dei}, in that it doesn't point to one or more things simultaneous with = the utterance, but rather to the time that the utterance is made itself.

It might be more useful, now that I think about it, to = have a conversion from tenses to time sumti, so that one could point at the= present moment via a conversion from {nau}, as well as assign other times = via conversion of the other things in PU. I haven't thought very hard a= bout the grammar here (I don't even know if there's a selma'o f= or this) but (using {ja'u} since it is actually fairly hard to find a f= ree CV'V):
.i ja'u pu zo'e [ku?] goi ko'a mi klama lo zarci .i ba ko&= #39;a mi klama lo zdani
"At an earlier time (ko'a) I wen= t to a store). After that, I {tense relative to the present not specified} = go to a house."

I am fairly sure this doesn't work, because there i= s now this sumti in the sentence that isn't an argument of the selbri a= nd I'm not using fi'o, and at least one other problem, but somethin= g like this could probably work.

{zo'e} could then in theory be replaced there by so= mething filling the {ja'u} role I originally thought of.

=
Thanks for the responses; learning some of the misconceptions I = based this on were misconceptions was helpful.



mu'o mi'e latros.=
2010/10/3 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:= 17 PM, Latro <blindbravado@gma= il.com> wrote:
> My first post on the big jboste .ui
>
> Frequently this equivalence is used:
> caku mi broda =3D=3D mi ca broda
> and similar such things with PU.

They are basically equivalent, yes, at least in such simple cases. Yo= u
have to be careful when you move it over negations, quantifiers, etc.

> But {ku} isn't terminating anything
> in LE, so this doesn't really make sense.

KU has two distinct uses in the grammar:

=A0term -> (tag | FA) [KU] | NA KU

and:

=A0sumti -> (LA | LE | quantifier) selbri [KU]

this may be seen as overloading, but that's how it's always beeen.<= br> (Notice that the KU after NA is not elidable.)

So KU does not just terminate LE. It can also terminate LA or
quantifier plus selbri (which is similar to terminating LE, since the
result is a sumti, or it can make a term out of a tag or NA (or FA,
which is weird but grammatical).

> At the same time we want to
> be able to quickly say "now" or "later" without be= ing constrained to
> putting the tense before the selbri. The simplest way would be to
> simply use {zo'e}, which is actually what I thought was going on w= ith
> {caku} and the lot.

If you mean "ca zo'e", yes, it's semantically prett= y much equivalent
to "ca ku", but syntactically that is not what's going on. &q= uot;ca zo'e"
does not have any omitted terminator.

> But this isn't especially precise; we should be
> able to point at "the present moment" more easily and precis= ely, and
> also be able to talk about it in terms of more than just tenses.

The tense for "here-and-now" is "nau".

Talking about the present is different form situating some event in
the present. For talking about the present you would have to use "lo cabna", or maybe "lo cabna be dei" for more precision. That&= #39;s
something you can use to fill an argument slot, and so you can say
something about it.

> So why not give it a pro-sumti? The first CV'V I could find was {j= a'u}
> (I was very surprised to find some of the CV'V that already exist;=
> {ga'o} is a prominent example); why not use that?
>
> The short version of this:
> Proposal: {ja'u}: pro-sumti; the present moment relative to the > speaker.

Example sentence?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--00c09f8e5c213508f50491b86fad--