From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 26 18:32:32 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 01:32:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 93770 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 01:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 01:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 01:32:31 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.29.2dcaefbc (2612) for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29.2dcaefbc.2ac50f28@aol.com> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:32:24 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_29.2dcaefbc.2ac50f28_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_29.2dcaefbc.2ac50f28_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/26/2002 7:52:22 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: <<> > > << > > > le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu > > > > > I tend to see what something takes a turn around as a center rather > than an > > axis, which {carna} seems to require -- is this a legitimate > extension? > > I meant a full rotation around its axis, yes. > (How would we talk about a revolution around another body?) >> Which tends to make me wonder what x2 of {carna} is supposed to be anyhow -- it always is the axis of rotation and how wlse is it going to be described? So the place is there not to be used in that place, but to give a means of saying "axis of rotation" in other places. Not ideal, however handy. And we won't get into the age-old problem of how to give the direction of turn (why this once did we leave out "from vantage point x4"?) But even then, how do we say it: it isn't "toward the left" and it isn't "the left," so what is the word? As for the other, the best suggestion seems to be {se jendu} -- in a nice inversion of {carna} -- though that may not be dynamic. {jincarna} is a bit of a stretch but better than the alsosuggested {gunro}. << > Why doesn't this mean "the planet makes a full turn around all minutes once," > i.e., why isn't {ro mentu} x2? {paroi} is a tag, so it tags the following sumti. > {paroi} seems to be a free modifier so has > at most rhetorical effect on its neighbors and there is nothing in CLL or the > cmavo list to suggest that {PAroi} takes a sumti to indicate the span within > which the repetitions are counted (though maybe it should). Actually, it does. It even has an example (pg 233): {mi klama le zarci reroi le ca djedi}, "I go to the market twice today". >> Thanks. Chalk up another place where the index leaves out all the interesting cases. << > Maybe something like {ca ro mentu le plini paroi mulcarna}, though I'd be > happier with something more intervally than {ca} -- can {ze'e} be used in > that way (there used to be something like {ci'a}, but that may be all th way > back to Loglan. The tense can't tag the selbri, otherwise the scope is still wrong. I suppose {le plini cu mulcarna ze'a ro mentu paroiku} does work. It is still very tempting to just say {paroi ro mentu} though. Could we say that the tagged sumti's quantifier has scope over the tag's quantifier? >> Not too easily, without mucking with the left to right scope marking. Is it the case that the tense attached to a selbri is, like {na} to be taken as at the far left of the prefix. Obviously yes, as it should be. So, how do we override that? Explicitly seems the only answer: {ze'a ro mentu paroiku zo'u ...} But how to do it on the fly? I remember asking to build in context leapers a long time agoand having that idea rejecteed out of hand. Maybe it is time to make the suggestion again -- on loCCan, fo course. --part1_29.2dcaefbc.2ac50f28_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/26/2002 7:52:22 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

> <<
> >        le plini cu mulcarna paroi ro mentu
> >
> I tend to see what something takes a turn around as a center rather
than an
> axis, which {carna} seems to require -- is this a legitimate
extension? 

I meant a full rotation around its axis, yes.
(How would we talk about a revolution around another body?)

>>
Which tends to make me wonder what x2 of {carna} is supposed to be anyhow --  it always is the axis of rotation and how wlse is it going to be described?  So the place is there not to be used in that place, but to give a means of saying "axis of rotation" in other places.  Not ideal, however handy.  And we won't get into the age-old problem of how to give the direction of turn (why this once did we leave out "from vantage point x4"?)  But even then, how do we say it: it isn't "toward the left" and it isn't "the left," so what is the word?
As for the other, the best suggestion seems to be {se jendu} -- in a nice inversion of {carna} --  though that may not be dynamic. {jincarna} is a bit of a stretch but better than the alsosuggested {gunro}.

<<
> Why doesn't this mean "the planet makes a full turn around all
minutes once,"
>  i.e., why isn't {ro mentu} x2?

{paroi} is a tag, so it tags the following sumti.

> {paroi} seems to be a free modifier so has
> at most rhetorical effect on its neighbors and there is nothing in
CLL or the
> cmavo list to suggest that {PAroi} takes a sumti to indicate the
span within
> which the repetitions are counted (though maybe it should). 

Actually, it does. It even has an example (pg 233): {mi klama
le zarci reroi le ca djedi}, "I go to the market twice today".
>>
Thanks.  Chalk up another place where the index leaves out all the interesting cases.

<<
> Maybe something like {ca ro mentu le plini paroi mulcarna}, though
I'd be
> happier with something more intervally than {ca} -- can {ze'e} be
used in
> that way (there used to be something like {ci'a}, but that may be
all th way
> back to Loglan.

The tense can't tag the selbri, otherwise the scope is still
wrong. I suppose {le plini cu mulcarna ze'a ro mentu paroiku}
does work. It is still very tempting to just say {paroi ro mentu}
though. Could we say that the tagged sumti's quantifier has
scope over the tag's quantifier?
>>
Not too easily, without mucking with the left to right scope marking.  Is it the case that the tense attached to a selbri is, like {na} to be taken as at the far left of the prefix. Obviously yes, as it should be.  So, how do we override that? Explicitly seems the only answer: {ze'a ro mentu paroiku zo'u ...}  But how to do it on the fly?  I remember asking to build in context leapers a long time agoand having that idea rejecteed out of hand.  Maybe it is time to make the suggestion again -- on loCCan, fo course. --part1_29.2dcaefbc.2ac50f28_boundary--