The connotation ( in at least one sense) of many 'again's is that the previous doing was some way inadequate. I doubt there is a way to build that briefly into aLojban sentence and it would be improper to do so as it comes not from the words but from their being uttered in a certain context. The same is true of the habitual, repetitive sense.
Sent from my iPad
Were it not for Pierre's point, there would be an importance to the connotation. Given Pierre's point this is less important. It's a little hard to word this, but I'll try. When we say "again", there is a point to us saying "again". There is a reason why we wanted to mention that not only did we do this, but we did it before. With something like {mi klama le zarci}, the fact that I have done this before in the first place is meaningless; obviously I've been to the store more than once, so {mi klama le zarci} is essentially the same statement as {mi za'u re'u klama le zarci} if I'm much older than about 4 years old. Anything that makes a phrase add nothing to a statement should at least be called into question.
I see now, though, that {mi za'u re'u klama le zarci} == {mi za'u re'u zo'e klama le zarci}, though, and so the universe of discourse is not necessarily implied to be the entire timeline. The effect of THIS, though, is essentially the same as setting {za'u re'u}=={za'u xo'e re'u} instead of to {za'u pa re'u} with the universe of discourse considered to be all time. So basically I had my way all along, albeit via a different mechanism. .ui
mu'o mi'e latros On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
No, not anything of selma'o PA; a number that is unspecified but considered obvious from context.
Obviously. zo'e (and, therefor by extension, your proposed xo'e) is always understood to be obvious from context. My point is that, just as anything is a possible value for zo'e, any PA would be a possible value for your proposed xo'e.
The point of {za'u re'u}=={za'u xo'e re'u} is that {za'u re'u}=={za'u pa re'u}, which is the current equivalence means that something happens for the >1th time it has ever happened, which could just be the 2nd time it has ever happened. This doesn't carry the connotation of "again", even if it does carry the denotation of "again". Consider something like {xu do za'u re'u klama le zarci}. The connotation of "again" there is that the number {za'u PA} is somehow "large" in some sense; for example, if you went to the store for the 100th time in your life today, going to the store for the 101st time might be surprising if you don't usually go to the store twice in one day. On the other hand with the {za'u pa re'u} meaning it really doesn't carry any weight whatsoever because it isn't surprising that you went to the store at all today and because you've definitely gone to the store in the past.
The connotation of a word- any word- has no bearing on a word's definition. Connotation is neither consistent nor uniform, even when restricting it to multiple uses by the same person. Connotation is an arbitrary thing, determined by the people involved, the context of the situation, and many and various other factors. There is no way to provide a standard connotation to a word- that's what a denotation is. A connotation is an opinion. That said, I do not agree that "again" has this "largeness" connotation. Obviously this is my opinion. I went to the bathroom again. I had breakfast again. I posted a response on this thread again.
If you want to add "weight" to a word in Lojban, that's what we have ba'e for.
"I went to the store again."
{mi lo zarce pu za'ure'u klama}
(With weight and surprise:
"I went to the store again!?"
{mi lo zarce pu ba'e za'ure'u .ue klama}
The only real counterargument I see to this is that the universe of discourse can have a temporal scope, so that {lo pa re'u nu mi klama le zarci} could refer to the first time I went to the store *today* even though I've gone to the store hundreds of times in the past. This seems like a weak counterargument to me because of the inability to conveniently specify the temporal scope of the universe of discourse (which is something of a problem anyway, to be frank).
I'm not a linguist. I don't have anything to say about anything involving the concept of a "universe of discourse". I'll leave that up to the likes of Mr. Cowan e al.
mu'o mi'e latros
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
If I understand ze'ei correctly, then {zo'e ze'ei pa} means, basically, "unspecified number", or, in other words, "anything of selma'o PA", which means it includes numbers <=1, irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, etc. Since something must happen more than once to happen "again", {za'u xo'e re'u to zo xo'e selsmu lu zo'e ze'ei pa li'u toi} does not have the same meaning.
When something happens for the 2nd time {re re'u}, it is happening again.
When something happens for the 3rd time {ci re'u}, it is happening again.
When something happens for the 4th time {vo re'u}, it is happening again.
...
When something happens for the (x>1)th time {za'u [pa] re'u}, it is happening again.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
If the default number were to be made {xo'e} (which has been proposed to mean {zo'e ze'ei pa}, especially now that its current meaning is useless with xorlo in place) instead of {pa}, then {za'u re'u} would be implicitly {za'u xo'e re'u}, which would definitely work for "again", I think.
mu'o mi'e latrosOn Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:16 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Friday 05 August 2011 01:43:04 MorphemeAddict wrote:
> gunta fa la veklarg
>
> I don't know how to say "again" ('x+1'th occurrence?).
za'ure'u - that's what it was in Alice.
Pierre
Does "za'u re'u" already contain the idea of 'time' or 'occurrence'? It seems to be just an ordinal number meaning 'further', 'additional'.
Does this work:
za'u re'u gunta fa la veklarg
I also found "krefu", but I don't know if/how "krefu" can be used to get the meaning of 'again'.
stevo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
|