From pycyn@aol.com Mon Aug 12 19:04:48 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 13 Aug 2002 02:04:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 33342 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2002 02:04:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2002 02:04:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2002 02:04:46 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.18c.c4e44a6 (25713) for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <18c.c4e44a6.2a89c33b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:04:43 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] space tenses To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_18c.c4e44a6.2a89c33b_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_18c.c4e44a6.2a89c33b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/12/2002 7:23:31 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > Not at all! I can say {ko'a za'o zvati le purdi} to mean just the > same thing. I am not transferring the superfevtive to {le nu carvi}. > Nick's {pu'o} rule would have it mean that he's in the garden as > it keeps starting to rain. Well, clearly not just the same thing, but a more general thing of which this is a particular case. This is getting down to fine points here -- how far beyond the natural stopping point does the activity have to extend before we can say {za'o}, I would say that starting to rain is the natural stopping point and thus would figure that actually raining would be a good {za'o}. The axis needs to be the focus of the {za'o} period, not its beginning or end (necessarily) and certainly not outside it altogether, which I take the natural end to be (he hasn't gone beyond the natural end at the natural end). << I think you cannot force the tagged sumti to be the axis/origin in all cases. For example, in the case of the ZEhAs and VEhAs, the sumti is the measure of the temporal or spatial extension over which the event takes place. In the case of TAhEs and ROIs it is the interval in which the repetitions happen. For example {pare'u le cabdei} means "the first time today", so there may have been other times in other days. {ciroi le purlamjeftu} is "three times last week", {ru'i le nu jamna} is "continuously during the war", {za'e lo mentu be li mu} is "for five minutes", and so on. In all cases the tag could be taken to the main selbri and the sense kept the same, only not as precise. The sumti as axis/origin really only works for PUs and FAhAs, which give the position of the main even relative to that origin. >> Well, part of the problem is that, if we are going to keep calling them tenses, we do have only vectors and axes to work with. So, if the form is a tense, then what it has is an remote axis, as a focus for an area or volume or whatever. Of course, if they are something else, then a whole other set of rules might apply and so, for example, ZAhO might have totally different rules and arguments from PU and the respectable parts of FAhA would have no effect. I would like to keep a rule throughout, but I may not be able to -- and the cases you cite are about (more or less) lengths rather than directions, so that may take a different set of rules as well (though ZI and VI seem to behave like PU). But, in fact, the examples you give do not seem to violate the rule described -- the axis need not be a point (I guess focus might be a better world altogether) and vectors can be 0s. If the cases you cite really are particularlizations of tense position cases (or the latter fuzzifications of these cases), then it almost has to be an axis involved or the event is floating free from any tie to the real world (or the fairy one, for that matter). I take it that {za'e lo mentu be li mu} is your cobbled together way of dealing with that problem (but shouldn't it be {xa'e} to at least pretend to be legal Lojban). --part1_18c.c4e44a6.2a89c33b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/12/2002 7:23:31 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


Not at all! I can say {ko'a za'o zvati le purdi} to mean just the
same thing. I am not transferring the superfevtive to {le nu carvi}.
Nick's {pu'o} rule would have it mean that he's in the garden as
it keeps starting to rain.


Well, clearly not just the same thing, but a more general thing of which this is a particular case.  This is getting down to fine points here -- how far beyond the natural stopping point does the activity have to extend before we can say {za'o},  I would say that starting to rain is the natural stopping point and thus would figure that actually raining would be a good {za'o}.  The axis needs to be the focus of the {za'o} period, not its beginning or end (necessarily) and certainly not outside it altogether, which I take the natural end to be (he hasn't gone beyond the natural end at the natural end).

<<
I think you cannot force the tagged sumti to be the axis/origin
in all cases. For example, in the case of the ZEhAs and VEhAs, the
sumti is the measure of the temporal or spatial extension over
which the event takes place. In the case of TAhEs and ROIs it is
the interval in which the repetitions happen. For example
{pare'u le cabdei} means "the first time today", so there may
have been other times in other days. {ciroi le purlamjeftu}
is "three times last week", {ru'i le nu jamna} is "continuously
during the war", {za'e lo mentu be li mu} is "for five minutes",
and so on. In all cases the tag could be taken to the main
selbri and the sense kept the same, only not as precise.
The sumti as axis/origin really only works for PUs and FAhAs,
which give the position of the main even relative to that
origin.
>>

Well, part of the problem is that, if we are going to keep calling them tenses, we do have only vectors and axes to work with.  So, if the form is a tense, then what it has is an remote axis, as a focus for an area or volume or whatever.  Of course, if they are something else, then a whole other set of rules might apply and so, for example, ZAhO might have totally different rules and arguments from PU and the respectable parts of FAhA would have no effect.  I would like to keep a rule throughout, but I may not be able to -- and the cases you cite are about (more or less) lengths rather than directions, so that may take a different set of rules as well (though ZI and VI seem to behave like PU).  But, in fact, the examples you give do not seem to violate the rule described -- the axis need not be a point (I guess focus might be a better world altogether) and vectors can be 0s. If the cases you cite really are particularlizations of tense position cases (or the latter fuzzifications of these cases), then it almost has to be an axis involved or the event is floating free from any tie to the real world (or the fairy one, for that matter).
I take it that {za'e lo mentu be li mu} is your cobbled together way of dealing with that problem (but shouldn't it be {xa'e} to at least pretend to be legal Lojban). --part1_18c.c4e44a6.2a89c33b_boundary--