From pycyn@aol.com Sat Aug 10 05:24:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 10 Aug 2002 12:24:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 34667 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2002 12:24:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2002 12:24:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Aug 2002 12:24:47 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.19b.6b93a64 (2612) for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19b.6b93a64.2a866008@aol.com> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:24:40 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] space tenses To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_19b.6b93a64.2a866008_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_19b.6b93a64.2a866008_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I said, temporal tenses are worse. About the time my lst message went out, I awoke seeing clearly that that message was confused, confusing and in large measure wrong. All the tenses place the event in the sentnece relative to the axis in the appropriate way. The common (I trust xorxeson this) usage of inchoative and perfective seems to put the axis relative to the event -- and the blurb lends itself readily to that interpretation. But it should not be -- the fact that, relative to the event, the inchoative is past, does not mean that inchoative is a past kind of tense (nor mirrorly for the perfective), but rather that it is a future one, since it is the axis to event direction that counts always. So, it is the axis which lies in the event contour in question and so, as xorxes says, Nick has asked people to be building up to the work on 9/20 (and presumably actually doing it by 10/1 and finishing by ?). As usual, when xorxes isn't unlojbanic, he is right -- and often when he at first seems unlojbanic as well. [I have the distinct feeling that I have been on the wrong side of this issue in the past but can't find the cases at the moment; {za'o} as a sumti tcita should introduce where/when one has actually gotten to, not what one has overshot.] --part1_19b.6b93a64.2a866008_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I said, temporal tenses are worse. About the time my lst message went out, I awoke seeing clearly that that message was confused, confusing and in large measure wrong. All the tenses place the event in the sentnece relative to the axis in the appropriate way. The common (I trust xorxeson this) usage of inchoative and perfective seems to put the axis relative to the event -- and the blurb lends itself readily to that interpretation. But it should not be -- the fact that, relative to the event, the inchoative is past, does not mean that inchoative is a past kind of tense (nor mirrorly for the perfective), but rather that it is a future one, since it is the axis to event direction that counts always. So, it is the axis which lies in the event contour in question and so, as xorxes says, Nick has asked people to be building up to the work on 9/20 (and presumably actually doing it by 10/1 and finishing by ?). As usual, when xorxes isn't unlojbanic, he is right -- and often when he at first seems unlojbanic as well. [I have the distinct feeling that I have been on the wrong side of this issue in the past but can't find the cases at the moment; {za'o} as a sumti tcita should introduce where/when one has actually gotten to, not what one has overshot.] --part1_19b.6b93a64.2a866008_boundary--