Re: Order of time tenses

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> > TAhE says how the interval is to be filled by the event. (I'm including
> > the 'numberROI' here with TAhE.) It can be continuously filled with one
> > event, regularly with an indeterminate number of repetitions, etc.
> >
> > ZAhO says what "phase" we are talking about. The "phase" can coincide
> > with the event proper (ca'o), be some time after the event proper (ba'o),
> > before the start of the event proper (pu'o), after what should have been
> > the end but wasn't (za'o), at the start (co'a), at the end (co'u), etc.
>
> I should have thought it necessary to have [ZAhO [TAhE [ZAho [selbri]]]].

ZAhO TAhE ZAhO <selbri> is allowed, but I'm not sure it is interpreted
as your bracketing suggests.

> For example, smoking is an activity, while habitually smoking is a
> state, (She smokes), though it can be an activity (She is smoking a lot
> these days). [I am trying to use Lojban terms for aktionsart here.]
> Similarly, crossing a frontier is an achievement, a punctual event, but
> iteratively crossing a frontier is an activity. If one has to cross
> a frontier thrice per day, then this is an accomplishment ('process'
> in Lojban terms, I think), though each individual crossing remains
> an achievement.

I really don't see what all that has to do with the order of ZAhOs and TAhEs.

        ko'a ba'o damva'u
        She has smoked.

        ko'a ta'e damva'u
        She habitually smokes

But what are these:

        ko'a ta'e ba'o damva'u
        ko'a ba'o ta'e damva'u

One is "she used to habitually smoke", and the other is "she
habitually is in the aftermath of smoking".

But which is which?

Let's assume it's:

        ko'a ta'e ba'o damva'u
        She habitually is in the aftermath of smoking.

        ko'a ba'o ta'e damva'u
        She is in the aftermath of habitually smoking.

Now let's add an interval size: ze'u = long interval.
The grammar allows only one interval size in the tense:

        ko'a ze'u ta'e ba'o damva'u
        She habitually is in the aftermath of long smoking.

        ko'a ze'u ba'o ta'e damva'u
        She is in the aftermath of a long period of habitual smoking.

Obviously this makes no sense, because the ze'u is next to ta'e when
they don't refer to the same interval, and separated from it when they
do refer to the same interval. So let's try the other order:

        ko'a ta'e ba'o damva'u
        She is in the aftermath of habitually smoking.

        ko'a ba'o ta'e damva'u
        She habitually is in the aftermath of smoking.

Then when we add ze'u:

        ko'a ze'u ta'e ba'o damva'u
        She is in the aftermath of a long period of habitual smoking.

        ko'a ze'u ba'o ta'e damva'u
        She habitually is in the aftermath of long smoking.

In reverse of the English order, but consistent so far. What if we now
add a puzi:

        ko'a puzi ze'u ta'e ba'o damva'u
        She was recently in the aftermath of a long period of habitual smoking.

        ko'a puzi ze'u ba'o ta'e damva'u
        She recently was habitually in the aftermath of long smoking.

Now the puzi joins with the last tense, instead of the one next to it.
So, whichever of the two interpretations is chosen for each of {ta'e ba'o}
and {ba'o ta'e}, there is a case that doesn't make much sense.

What I propose is that the order be: PUZI [ZAhO ZAhE TAhE] [ZAhO ZAhE TAhE] ...
Then it always makes sense:

        ko'a ba'o ta'e damva'u
        She is in the aftermath of habitually smoking.

        ko'a ta'e ba'o damva'u
        She habitually is in the aftermath of smoking.

Adding ze'u:

        ko'a ba'o ze'u ta'e damva'u
        She is in the aftermath of a long period of habitual smoking.

        ko'a ta'e ba'o ze'u damva'u
        She habitually is in the aftermath of long smoking.

and something else we can't say with things as they are now:

        ko'a ba'o ta'e za'u damva'u
        She is in the aftermath of habitually smoking for long times.


And adding puzi is perfectly consistent, since it ties in with the first
tense that follows it.

In summary:

1) The current tense order does not have all the flexibility it could have.
(e.g. there is no way of indicating the length of sub-intervals.)

2) With the current order, either the time offset doesn't join with the
tense it has next to it, or the interval property is not next to the
interval it modifies. (I'm not sure which, because I don't know the
interpretation of TAhE ZAhO vs ZAhO TAhE.)

3) I think that something along the lines of PUZI [ZAhO ZAhE TAhE]
[ZAhO ZAhE TAhE]... would make more sense.

Jorge


PS: In BNF terms, I'm suggesting changing the time term to:

time<1030> = ZI & time-offset ... & [ZAhO & ZEhA[PU] & interval-property] ...