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

[Martin Bays <mbays@freeshell.org>]

(excuse delay - have moved, been internetless)

cu'u la xorxes. zo'u
> la maten cusku di'e
>
> > 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.

Sure, I was just (clumsily) trying to develop a formalish theory of what
such constructions might mean.

>
> > 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
>

I can see both interpretations of ZAhO as sumtcita make sense, but (1)
is the one I've always understood. Also, I'd suggest the usage of
ba'o/pu'o as sumtcita with (1) is more frequent than (and so trumps) the
usage of co'a/co'u with (2). Isn't it?

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

Hmmm. I don't know about this idea of flattening out the tense grammar.
As it stands, the grammatical structure more or less reflects the
semantic structure - which I'd have thought was a Very Good Thing.
Tenses refer to something as concrete and tractable as subsets of
space-time - so surely we ought to be able to formulate a nice formal
semantics for them, with the grammar corresponding.

What I'm saying is - if you want to allow tenses which don't fit in to
the imaginary journey model then fine - but I for one won't be happy
until a theory giving them a definite, explicit meaning is developed.

> > > 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.

Shit. You're right. You know how you can read something, repeatedly,
without really reading it - because you *know* what it says? Or you
think you do. My sincere apologies for earlier accusing you of
CLL-heresy - really rather rude of me, thinking about it, as well as
wrong.

OK, I no longer understand tenses as sumtcita. I thought I did, but it
seems I was wrong.

So how does this work with a full tense rather than just a fragment of
one? What would
    {loi snima cu carvi pu zi ze'a ba'o le ca dunra}
mean, for instance?

mu'o mi'e maten.