On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 4:02 PM, John E. Clifford <
kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nice point! All I can do is point to the aspect markers as indicative. Of course there are other tricks: intransitive eating per se is an activity, transitive eating is a process.
"ko'a ze'a citka lo sanmi" describes a process, then the natural way
to refer to them is "lo nu ko'a ca'o citka" and "lo nu ko'a ze'a citka
lo sanmi". Nothing new is gained by using "zu'o" in one case and
"pu'u" in the other. And if something new is gained, we have no way of
doing it at the main bridi level, or as a du'u, or as a property, or
as a relative clause.
> For a person whose jaw has been wired shut for weeks, ordinary eating may be an achievement.
I don't think that's what "achievement" means in lexical aspect terms.
An achievement is a telic event with no duration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect
Nothing to do with the sense of achievement a person may have from
accomplishing something they find difficult.
> And, of course, being an eater is a state. But I don't know what the clues are in Lojban.
What I'm not sure I understand yet is what we are supposed to gain by
indicating which category the event falls under when we describe the
event. It's not as if we are adding any information to the description
of the event.