Re: [lojban] Far away

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

On 23 August 2011 20:35, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> cool.  Excellent explanation.  So the distinction between {vi} and {vu} then
> is not so much a reflection of actual distance but more so what the speaker
> feels about that distance.  e.g. {mi zutse ne'a lo tricu vi lo mitre} tells
> us that the speaker feels like a meter a short distance from the tree while
> if I had said {vu lo mitre} we would be led to believe that the speaker
> feels that one meter is a very large distance from the tree.
> Is that a reasonable understanding?
> So at this point, does VI differ from TAG?

It seems to me that a tag is basically whatever bare cmavo or unit of
cmavo that can be replaced by a "fi'o SELBRI". The new school VI would
be something like:

  fi'o cmalu te sepli
  at small distance

The old school VI has been something like:

  fi'o se jibni se sepli / fi'o jibni
  near

There seems to be little syntactical change.

(By the way, could "fi'o cmalu te sepli zo'e" mean "fi'o te jibni zo'e"?)

> I perpetually have trouble when talking about TAG-like constructs.
> {broda ba lo nu brode} = "broda occurs {ba (in the future of) } the event of brode"
> {broda vi lo brode} = "broda occurs {vi (short distance of) } the brode".
>  What it is a short distance FROM is unspecified.  For specifying origin
> we'd need to use a bu'u or some such I guess?  Maybe as is the case with an
> un-specified TAG, the assumed thing is the speakers here and now.
> i.e. {broda baku} = "broda occurs {ba (in the future of) } ...... speaker's
> present/location"
> {broda viku} ?= "broda occurs {vi (short distance of) } .... speaker's
> present/location"..... wow... that feels odd.  Clearly genai VI and TAG are
> entirely different gi I don't understand ga VI gi TAG

'The assumed thing' about each tag doesn't have to be of the same sort
apart from being something specific to the speaker (if we really are
to take TAG KU as implying not just {zo'e} but {lo steci be mi}, {tu'a
mi}, etc.). We can have different me-involving assumptions according
to each tag's meaning. With {ba}, it's naturally a temporal point.
With the new {vi}, it would naturally be a spatial distance:

  ba ku = fi'o se balvi tu'a mi
  subsequent to some me-involving temporal point (my present)

  vi ku = fi'o cmalu te sepli tu'a mi
  at some me-involving small (near-my-location) distance

(But TAG KU doesn't always imply the speaker's such frame of
reference, does it?)

mu'o

-- 
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.