Subject: re; le ga'ifanta

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:27:54 EDT

xod:
<<You like this? In the first version I was going to glue the 5 years to the
publishing clause using jmina!>>
It works for me: "the date of the end of the freeze is the result of adding
at least five years to the date of the completion of publication of ther
books" But don't ask me to lb it.

<<On Mon, 22 May 2000 [email-masked] wrote:
> In a message dated 00-05-22 13:18:38 EDT, you write:
> << le ga'ifanta ba'o cfari .i pu'o fanmo va'o le mu'e mumoi nanca mo'u
le > za'i loi cukta mo'u paprici'a >>
> 
> Barring another revolution I missed, some comments (and notice that I
am not > offering to take on this translation task):
> First is clean: the freeze has started;- the start is over and its effects 
> (the ongoing freeze) continue. 
> But:
> why not a subject for the second: it is obvious (I suppose, though so
often > it has been scilicentious <mi>), but I think it is a bad habit, even 
if 
> elegant. <ri> or <gy>.
> Or just conjoin the predicates with the appropriate form of <e>. 
I really can't figure out the grammar of the above paragraph.>>
A sample of what I was complaining about, I fear, with my own trims. 
The point was just that, rather than leaving out the subject of the second
sentence <le ga'ifanta>, it would be clearer either to use a pronoun like
<ri> or <gy> or to join the two predication, rather than using a second
full sentence. The second choice requires using the right form of <e> and
I never blame anyone for shying away from figuring that out.

<<> Anyhow, <pu'o> is the mirror image of <ba'o>, causes all together
but not yet > actually begun, "is about to." This does not apply to the
end of the freeze; > almost none of the causes are in place -- an adequate-
sized group of > competent lb speakers, for instance. <pu'o> has the
advantage over <ba> that > it does not commit you to the event actually
happening, but that force of > <ba> is mitigated by the general
uncertainty of the future and could here be > further diluted by some
weasly epistemolgical flag, "they say," or so. Of > course, here the point
is to lay down the ruling, not make a prediction, so a > stronger but less
specific form might be appropriate: "if it ever ends, it > will be after at
least five years after..."
I don't read that much into pu'o! I know it as "in the future, and not in
the past or now.">>
For a bit more on <pu'o>, which really is pretty much as I said, see the
section on contour aspects in The Book , 10.10, noting especially its non-
relation to <ba>. 

<<> I am not sure what <mu'e> could mean with <nanca> in a rational
way: being a > duration is almost by definition a state, or, at best, an
activity, not an > achievement. But, since it is hard to make rational
sense of it yet it is > legal, we can make an idiom and the one you
suggest "the completion (full > realization) of the fifth year" [it should be
<su'omumoi>] is the best > candidate for practical purposes. 
> 
> I haven't put a parser to it, but I don't follow the next bit "the fifth 
year 
> at the natural end of the state of the books at the end of being 
> page-written" Published? But that is an achievement in one way, so the
fifth > year _after_ it, or a state, so the fifth year of it (i.e. being in 
print). 
> I think you want the <mo'u> with the <mumoi nanca>, not the <le za'i
... > papr_y_ci'a>. So move it in front of the selbri -- and thus take care
of the > question about the <mu'e>. "under the condition that the state
of the books > being in print has reached the end of its fifth year (at 
least)." I am not 
> sure this quite says that even yet, maybe (because I am unsure especially 
> about how the second fits into the place structure) <le mu'e li su'omu
mo'u > se nanca le za'i le cukta (it has to be all the books, remember) cu 
> papryci'a> taking the last to be "are in print."
> << le ga'ifanta ba'o cfari .i pu'o fanmo va'o le mu'e mumoi nanca mo'u
le za'i loi cukta mo'u papryci'a >>
I constructed the 2nd sentence as: "in the future it ends at the point in
time of five years at the end of the state of the books being completely
published.">>
<faku ri fanmo ca le mu'e mumoi nanca mo'u le pu'u [<mo'u> supposes a
process] le cukta [all and only the ones we are interested in, not some of
all the books there are] cu papryci'a> But I am still not sure it says how
the fifth year is related to the publication . Maybe <ba le mo'e le cukta
mo'u papryci'a>, -moi having lost its "origin" place in some revolution or
other (unless it can be brought in under a rule, somehow).

<<Since ca as sumti tcita means "when", I interpret "mo'u" likewise as "at
the completion of". <<mumoi nanca mo'u X>> means mumoi nanca
occurs at the mu'o time of X; at it's completion. mu'e means the entire
thing I am trying to communicate (the end of baseline) is a point-time.>>
Well, it doesn't claim it is a point event, it just presupposes it is for 
interpretation, leaving us to figure out how that can be or what it means. 
And how can a year, especially a fifth year (from what?) occur at a point? 
This looks to say that the end of the fifth year and the end of publication 
are the same time point, which is clearly wrong -- but not clearly what it 
says. But it is not clear to me just what it does say.