From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 09 15:24:26 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 9 Aug 2002 22:24:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 48254 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2002 22:24:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2002 22:24:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Aug 2002 22:24:26 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.197.b2ac225 (2612)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:24:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <197.b2ac225.2a859b11@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:24:17 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni though this particular line should be something else)
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_197.b2ac225.2a859b11_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_197.b2ac225.2a859b11_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[pc dramatically slaps forehead with heel of right hand and mutters things in 
non-native languages]
I'm so used to thinking that whatever xorxes says that is not totally crazy 
(from the point of standardized Lojban) is right that I missed it when he 
said something only slightly off:

<<
Spatial tenses give the location of the event,
in this case the event of wearing.
>>
referring to {ko'a dasni le boxfo vi le birka janco}

But {vi le birka janco} is not a spatial tense but a rather a tense marker in 
its use as a sumti tcita, as though it were BAI. Thus, as xorxes notes 
later,
<<
pc>{be} is harder, since
>officially it makes {le birka janco} occupy a place in the structure of
>{boxfo} (a place not usually there, to be sure) and the exact relation of
>that place to the rest of the structure is unspecified. It does seem to be
>more intimate than {ne}, but not obviously restrictive like {pe}.

{be} makes what follows a part of the description, so it has
to be restrictive.
>>
it adds a place to the main selbri, in this case {dasni}, saying where the 
object2 is worn. 

So we need not go into the question (enchanting as it is) of where events 
occur (I don't take back what I said about that, though).

We do have a question about distinguishing tense usage from pseudo-BAI usage 
perhaps, but I suspect that there is rarely any conflict or damagiing 
confusion (the difference in these cases is largely Gricean, in short).

--part1_197.b2ac225.2a859b11_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>[pc dramatically slaps forehead with heel of right hand and mutters things in non-native languages]<BR>
I'm so used to thinking that whatever xorxes says that is not totally crazy (from the point of standardized Lojban) is right that I missed it when he said something only slightly off:<BR>
<BR>
&lt;&lt;<BR>
Spatial tenses give the location of the event,<BR>
in this case the event of wearing.<BR>
&gt;&gt;<BR>
referring to {ko'a dasni le boxfo vi le birka janco}<BR>
<BR>
But {vi le birka janco} is not a spatial tense but a rather a tense marker in its use as a sumti tcita, as though it were BAI.&nbsp; Thus, as xorxes notes later,<BR>
&lt;&lt;<BR>
pc&gt;{be} is harder, since<BR>
&gt;officially it makes {le birka janco} occupy a place in the structure of<BR>
&gt;{boxfo} (a place not usually there, to be sure) and the exact relation of<BR>
&gt;that place to the rest of the structure is unspecified.&nbsp; It does seem to be<BR>
&gt;more intimate than {ne}, but not obviously restrictive like {pe}.<BR>
<BR>
{be} makes what follows a part of the description, so it has<BR>
to be restrictive.<BR>
&gt;&gt;<BR>
it adds a place to the main selbri, in this case {dasni}, saying where the object2 is worn.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
So we need not go into the question (enchanting as it is) of where events occur (I don't take back what I said about that, though).<BR>
<BR>
We do have a question about distinguishing tense usage from pseudo-BAI usage perhaps, but I suspect that there is rarely any conflict or damagiing confusion (the difference in these cases is largely Gricean, in short).<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_197.b2ac225.2a859b11_boundary--

