From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Aug 13 10:54:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 13 Aug 2002 17:54:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 93285 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2002 17:54:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2002 17:54:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.107) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2002 17:54:22 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:54:22 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:54:22 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] space tenses Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:54:22 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Aug 2002 17:54:22.0371 (UTC) FILETIME=[747DB730:01C242F2] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e > > >{mi pu'o klama le zarci ca le nu mi citka}. > >I'm not 100% sure you read my gloss of 3 right. I meant it to be > >4 "It is about to become the case that when I eat I go to the shop", > >and not > >5 "When I eat, it is about to become the case that I go to the shop" > >Your further remarks seem to suggest that you think 1 means 5. You're right! Tags should behave like na's in this respect, so the ones directly on the selbri must have widest scope. To get the 5 reading we have to re-order them: {ca le nu mi citka kei pu'oku mi klama le zarci}. >Part of the problem is >that aspectuals shouldn't be handled by BAI; semantically, they >don't fit. > >If "mi pu'o klama" = "mi pu'o zo'e klama" means "it is the runup >to my going", "I am about to go", then it's hard to see what "zo'e" >can sensically mean. You and pc seem to be saying that >"mi pu'o ko'a klama" = "mi ca ko'a pu'o klama", but I don't see >how that follows; it seems like an interpretation convention adopted >so as to make your general tag equation work. Yes, I tend to agree. An implicit {ca} seems like the least tampering with the meaning. >My own naive interpretation is that aspectuals are 1-place predicates >when selbri tcita and 2-place predicates when sumti tcita. I agree they have to be at least 2-place to make sense as sumti tcita, yes. (Otherwise we get into weird cases like trying to figure out how the event tagged by {fau} relates to the rest of the arguments.) >I don't want to try to persuade anybody to agree with me, partly >because I haven't thought about the tense system much, and mainly >because I feel that all the controversies over the tense system >stem from handling tense by tags rather than by selbri. I agree with you anyway. The second place of aspectuals I get by adding a ca-place. So for example {co'a} as sumti tcita corresponds to {cfari ca zo'e}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com