TECH: Some responses from pc on outstanding technical issues

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

I have discussed some outstanding issues with pc.

1. He had never thought about an ordinal ROI, and says it sounds like it
might be useful.  He will think on this but is mildly in favor.

Nora commented in passing, though that there are ways of expressing an
ordinal event, though it isn't clear that there is a general solution
without invoking a new member of ROI.  An example on the fly:

cimoi nu mi klama le zarci kei ca le cabdei
That's the third time I went to the store today.

I will suggest reserving "re'u" for possible assignment to this purpose,
pending further thought; decision to be finalized by the end of LogFest,
at the latest, and preferably sooner.  The draft dictionary will be
prepared including it since it is easier to delete it than to add it.

2. There was list debate on the difference between "ta'e" and "na'o",
and Colin Fine, Cowan, and I all came up with different answers (I won't
repeat all of them here, but see May archives for Lojban List). pc notes
that both are "intensional" tenses, and therefore are supposed to be
subjective rather than objective, and not particularly quantifiable.  He
thus specifically does NOT like Cowan's distinction, which seemed to him
too extensional/objective and interpretation of both of them.

He gave an example which suggests the difference as he sees it.  Take a
"writer" (le vlaskufi'i).  It is possible for a writer to have a "dry
spell" during which s/he does not write anything for a fairly long
stretch.  Such a person, though may still consider himself a writer, and
be considered a writer, even though no actual wrtiting is done during a
specified interval.  It is acceptable to say that the person is "ta'e
vlaskufi'i" habitually a writer during the interval, even though no
writing was actual done during the interval.  "na'o" on the other hand
is subjectively determined without particular consideration of internal
states/mindsets, and it would not be true that the writer is "na'o
vlaskufi'i" during an interval when he actually did no writing.

Based on this example, he is inclined to favor Colin's explanation as
being closest to his, though since he didn't have it to look at and
consider at length.  He thinks that people should make sure that he and
Colin were indeed saying the same thing.  I therefore quote Colin, and
ask people to consider any needed rewordings for consistency.  Also,
John Cowan should ensure that the subjective nature of intensional
tenses are clear in the tense paper.

>Jorge asks about the difference between ta'e and na'o.
>
>My suggestion is this:
>
>ta'e is about actual habits.
>na'o is about the typical behavour.
>
>When the are used of specified individuals, I think they are quite
>similar (though not quite - see below).  But when they are used with
>indefinite descriptions or anaphora, ta'e refers to the actual habit of
>the identified individuals, na'o to the behaviour which might be
>regarded as typical of them as members or representatives of somegroup
>(the group often being implicit in the description).
>
>Thus
>le va tadni cu ta'e klama le ckuso'u = Those students habitually go to the
>library (it is their habit)
>
>le va tadni cu na'o klama le ckuso'u = Those students typically go to
>the library (it is typical of them - which doesn't necessarily imply
>that they do so either habitually or at all, merely that it is typical
>of the sort of behaviour they exhibit.  But most often it will mean that
>they habitually go).
>
>But
>
>Ro lo tadni cu ta'e klama le ckuso'u = All students habitually go to the
>library (clearly false)
>
>Ro lo tadni cu na'o klama le ckuso'u = All students typically go to the
>library (probably still false, as it is not obviously typical of all
>students; but some people might claim it as true).
>
>
>I think part of what I am saying is that ta'e is more or less objective
>('more or less' because you can argue about how often constitutes a
>habit), whereas na'o is a subjective evaluation (on the part of the
>speaker)

lojbab