Re: [bpfk] BPFK work - getting it done.

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/14 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>>
>> And in any case, the "Durational (progressive/continuous) Aspects in
>> Future" is "I will be going" as in "I will be singing". Don't confuse
>> "I will be going (home)",  with "I will be going to (sing)", where
>> "go" is used as an auxiliary.
>
> Yes. I know. I'm a native English speaker. I know the difference between "I
> will be going home" and "I will be going to sing".

Of course you know how to use them!. But that has nothing to do with
knowing the terminology to describe them. "Future
progressive/continuous" refers to "I will be singing", not to "I will
be going to sing". You read "I will be going" in the table and mistook
it for "I will be going to". Whoever wrote that table made a bad
mistake in choosing "go" as their example verb. Pointlessly confusing.

> If you look at the chart
> on the linked page, you'll see that /all/ of the entries have the word
> "aspects" in them.

Yes, in English (as in many other Indoeuropean languages) tense and
aspect are intimately intertwined, but in Lojban they are clearly
separated.

> And obviously {baba} has nothing to do with a
> destination. It is the stupidity of the English language using "will be
> going to" that's the problem here.

"Future progressive/continuous" for "will be going to" is simply
wrong. You just misread the wikipedia table, it doesn't say that.

> From the cmavo list at
> http://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/cmavo_selmaho_order.txt:
>>
>> baba - PU* - will be going to - time tense: will be going to;
>> (tense/modal)
>
> Personally, I'm in agreement with you. But I'm working on describing the
> unfinished cmavo entries in the BPFK sections, this is one of the entries,
> and that's it's official definition, stupid as it is.

There is a "to" in that definition. There is no "to" in the wikipedia table.
"Future continuous" is "ba (future) ca'o (continuous)" there is no way
it can be "ba ba".

"ba ba" is future in the future, and "will be going to" is a
reasonable approximation, even though it is pointless to have it as a
special definition. But it is not called what you are calling it.

> I would like to at this time seek approval for removing the following
> entries from the BPFK Section: Tense page:
>
> {baba}¹
> {bapu}¹
> {puba}¹
> {pupu}¹
>
> {baca'a}²
> {caca'a}²
> {cajeba}²
> {puca'a}²
> {pujeba}²
> {pujeca}²
> {puza}²
> {puze'a}²
> {puze'i}²
> {puze'u}²
> {puzi}²
> {puzu}²
>
> ¹ Official meaning differs from usage, as well as being non-intuitive.
> ² Meaning is obvious given meaning of components and therefore does not need
> it's own entry.

I fully support their removal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.