la gleki wrote:
1.
ba'o is currently defined (according to CLL
<http://dag.github.io/cll/10/10/>) as
ba'o ZAhO perfective
If we are to use normal linguistic terminology then this is wrong.
{ba'o} is perfect, not perfective - those are completely different things.
According to Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_tense> it's
better to avoid using the term "perfect" and change to "retrospective".
So I propose changing the definition of ba'o to
ba'o ZAhO retrospective
2.
As for "perfective" it looks like it's expressed using {co'i}.
Another independent proposal is that co'i should be defined as
co'i ZAhO perfective/achievative
"perfective" is used quite extensively when describing Chinese and
Russian grammar so normalising terminology is a must pe'i.
Neither proposal changes anything in Lojban itself, only in translation.
I don't necessarily have a problem with such a change (especially since I've been an incompetent student of Russian for 20+ years now), but would like pc's input. IIRC, the terminology came from his exposition to me of tense logic's terminology used for Aristotelian events, and pc was at the time a specialist in tense logic.
The "perfective" term, IIRC, was consistent with the "superfective" term (za'o itself), for which I don't know any other linguistic equivalent.
So the choice may be between using linguistic terminology or tense logic terminology.
I've cc'd this message to pc to make sure that he sees it. lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.