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.