From iad@MATH.BAS.BG Wed Jul 05 02:00:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17064 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2000 09:00:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Jul 2000 09:00:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO argo.bas.bg) (195.96.224.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Jul 2000 09:00:05 -0000 Received: from banmatpc.math.bas.bg (root@banmatpc.math.bas.bg [195.96.243.2]) by argo.bas.bg (8.11.0.Beta1/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with ESMTP id e658xlO21979 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:59:53 +0300 Received: from iad.math.bas.bg (iad.math.bas.bg [195.96.243.88]) by banmatpc.math.bas.bg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA02853 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:59:46 +0300 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <3961F91E.10E9B79F@math.bas.bg> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 17:47:58 +0300 X-Mozilla-Draft-Info: internal/draft; vcard=0; receipt=0; uuencode=0; html=0; linewidth=0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o References: <20000703234515.2657.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ivan A Derzhanski Jorge Llambias wrote: > But the same type of pragmatics that allows us to use {za'o} > for events that are not processes should allow us to use > whatever the mirror of {za'o} is for the mirror situation. I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by `mirror'. There is a reason for the current asymmetry of even contours, and it is the fact that causality works forward in time. This is why a process can have only one kind of beginning but two kinds of end, or a total of three points that can define the contour (leaving aside temporary pauses and resumptions): {co'a}: event brings forth process {mo'u}: process brings forth event {co'u}: event discontinues process There doesn't seem to be a vacancy for a fourth point. (Surely it is not `process discontinues event', because events can't be discontinued, they just happen. By `event' here I mean a point event, also known as an achievement.) > la ivAn cusku di'e > >`Is dinner ready? -- No, it's still cooking.' > >(Certainly not overcooking.) [...] > >Emphasis on real-world {ca'o} ({pu'omo'u}, {pu'oco'u}) > >in contrast to hypothetical {ba'o} and {za'o}. > >This is what we need to express. > > I'm not sure I follow this. {ba'o} and {za'o} are real world too. What I'm trying to say is that the question (formulated as it is) brings up a possible world in which completion has been attained, thus either {ba'o broda} or {za'o broda} holds (depending on whether the associated activity has been discontinued after having brought about its culmination), and the answer states that in fact it is {ca'o broda} that holds and {ba'o/za'o broda} do not. > la adam cusku di'e > >I have washed the car, but I have not yet walked the dog. > >i mi ba'o lumci le karce i ku'i mi pu'o dzugau le gerku > > There is nothing strange about your English phrase, but > reading the lojban one I am puzzled by that {ki'u}. > It sounds odd, like saying "I have washed the car, but > I am going to walk the dog". Why "but"? It's the information structure (the location of the focus of the utterance). What the Lojban is failing to say is `... but as for {dzugau le gerku} [topic], I'm {pu'o} [focus] that part'. In contrast to, that is, the {ba'o} in {ba'o lumci le karce}; also in contrast to some other (hypothetical) situation in which {ba'o dzugau le gerku}. --Ivan