Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni though this particular line should be something else)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:24:17 EDT

[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).