[lojban] Re: Tenses (was: Re: consolation)

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

la maten cusku di'e

> OK, yes, it does say that. But roi and re'u don't belong to the same
> *semantic* class - PAroi specifies an interval property, like TAhE, while
> PAre'u is an event contour (referring to a cycle of a cyclical activity
> (p.230)), like ZAhO.
> 
> And a couple of pages before those examples, we're told
> 
> '...from the viewpoint of Lojban syntax, ZAhOs are interval modifiers like
> TAhEs or ROI compounds; if both are found in a single tense, the TAhE/ROI
> comes first and the ZAhO afterward.'

This seems to be a left over from a previous version of the grammar, which 
was even more restrictive than the current one. The current grammar allows
all orderings for TAhE, ROI and ZAhO.

> Now it doesn't explicitly mention re'u, but I can't see any way in which
> it makes sense to make an exception for it.

It was probably written before {re'u} was introduced. {re'u} was one
of the last cmavo to be added.

> You define a subset of the
> time-line with PU, ZI, ZEhA, TAhE/PAroi; then you optionally specify how
> that subset relates to the event of the bridi/seltcita sumti with ZAhO and
> PAre'u.  That's my interpretation, anyhow, though I guess it might not be
> the only consistent one.

That's the basic idea, but the Lojban tags allow for finer 
distinctions too.

> Basically, I can see how multiple and out-of-place event contours could
> mean what you and 10.13 want them to, but I think it needs an explicit
> formal framework.
> 
> So I've come up with one. Please bear with me, I'm new at this lark. I
> *think* this makes sense, but if it doesn't, sorry.
> 
> 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. 

> 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

> (ce'o or sece'o might reasonably be decided to do the work of JOI1, but
> that's not important.)
> 
> Then we can define that whenever a single tense contains an event-contour
> term that's "out of place" according to the above rules - i.e. doesn't
> appear at the extreme right end of the tense - then that term is followed
> by an implicit JOI1.
> 
> So {mi pare'u paroi klama le zarci} ==
> 	{mi pare'u JOI1 paroi klama le zarci} --
> 	"[It now is] the first cycle of the activity of me going once to
> 	the store" --
> 	"For the first time I go to the store once"
> 
> And {ba'o mo'u broda} ==
> 	{ba'o JOI1 mo'u broda} --
> 	"[We are now in] the aftermath of the event of the completion of
> 	broda"
> 
> Which was what was wanted. Phew. OK. I think that works.
> 
> Ignore or destroy.

See also:
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Internal+grammar+of+tags

> > 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.

> So {ze'u le ca dunra} surely refers to a long interval
> centred around the winter (glorking it as {ca ze'u le ca dunra}). So the
> interval might be contained within the winter, might contain the winter,
> or might overlap in some other way - but I don't see how it could
> be consistently defined to necessarily be *precisely* the duration of the
> winter.

To me, ZEhAs indicate the precise duration. That's why they are so
useful.

> So in fact your and the CLL's uses are fine in this case - it's a
> reasonable assumption that exactly the whole interval is being referred
> to. I only mentioned it because I think I've seen attempts to *define*
> ZEhA as a sumtcita to always mean that, which I don't think works without
> breaking other things.
> 
> I might be wrong.

I disagree with some of the realated rules in CLL (especially with respect
to ZI and VA), but in this case I think my understanding of ZEhA tags 
matches what CLL says.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com