Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Tenses

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:37:39 EDT

In a message dated 8/12/2002 6:36:41 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> I remember I was very confused by these expresions when I first
> started learning Lojban. To me, "axis" suggests a straight line,
> not a point, so I prefer "origin" for the point where the vector
> originates. Also, the length of a vector is usally called "norm".
> Tensors are a generalization of vectors, (as force is a vector,
> tension is a tensor). The first time I read that Lojban tense
> used "tensors" I was really curious, until I realized they were
> nothing but the length of the vectors. Is this use of "axis"
> and "tensor" standard in Logic, or is it a Lojban thing?
>>

A bit of both: "axis" and "tensor" are both in regular linguistic tense 
usage, tense logic tends to conceptualize the whole thing differently -- with 
"paths" or some such word. The usage comes, apparently, from 
turn-of-the-century (i.e. 19th to 20th) mathematical usage. Using "tensor" 
is confusing and I am trying to break mysrelf of the habit, but "axis" is 
even harder to get rid of (first semester of Linguistics and just about every 
semester thereafter.

<<
>A remote axis expression cannot, therefore, go in the
>normal tense place, since it will there attach to the x1 sumti (and putting
>{cu} before it is illegal).

I think you may be mislead by the parser here. The remote axis
expression cannot be attached to the x1 sumti just by juxtaposition.
You need {ne} or one of its kin to attach it.
I wouldn't be surprised either way, since I haven't chased it down through 
the grammar. But the parser certainly does not treat it like a tense proper, 
grouping it with x1, not with the bridi tail.

<<
>This
>meets the present problem; the others (like "How do you give precise 
>tensors,
>e.g., 'fifty minutes ago and five miles away'?") will have to wait.

Are you thinking of the termset thing here, or do you have some
other card up your sleeve?
Well, I have not found an undoubted case of saying either of these things, 
let alone the two of them -- which probably could be done with a term-set if 
the single cases were dealt with. Add the question of giving angular 
instructions -- in 2 or 3 dimension -- for direction and a fistfull more, 
ending with trying to make sense of {mo'i} tenses (and a number of the other 
"solid" FAhA) in a way that makes them tenses rather than tanru. The Book is 
no help when it is not a positive hindrance (so I'm comoing around to, your 
way of thinking about the spatial tenses).