From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Jul 17 08:08:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26828 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2000 15:08:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jul 2000 15:08:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2000 15:08:58 -0000 Received: from m1016-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.15.248] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13ECMe-0007gM-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:59:25 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Opposite of za'o Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:08:46 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000715163120.87589.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > >Presumably "ca'o, not ba'o" can quite easily be rendered into > >Lojban, and I seem to recall this already having been done in > >your exchange with Ivan. > > No, I think we hadn't discussed {ca'o jenai ba'o}. Of all the > non-za'o proposals, this one is the one I like best. I still > feel it is missing an indication that the first part is the > actual claim and the second part is the denial of the > presupposition, but maybe that's too much to ask for. Too much to ask for from a ZAhO. We've already agreed that "still" could be rendered by a brivla, so this discussion is about whether you can say what you want using ZAhO. If I had my way then most redudant cmavo would be abolished, though, including ZAhO. > >But the only reason why the continuation of za'o broda is > >unexpected is that events that instantiate a telic event type > >*normally* cease once the telic event type has been instantiated. > > Exactly. But za'o is permitted with non-telics too, so the > generalization to "still" is the next step. I think {za'o broda} entails that broda is telic, just as {mo'u} does. So if {broda} is not normally telic, the interpreter has to seek an interpretation where broda is telic. > >I think you're going down the garden path with za'o. The solution > >to your requirements is Ivan's -- the one I've given above. > > Maybe you're right. I really don't like {je} with tenses, > but I will keep it in mind. You have this ideal conception of what Lojban ought to be like, from a user's perspective, and struggle and struggle to find ways to make Lojban yield some realization of this conception. To me, Lojban is how it is, and you like it or lump it. > [natural end vs. completion] > >But those concepts aren't implied if you think in terms of "intrinsic > >boundaries", i.e. an event counterpart of the count/mass distinction > >we're familiar with from English nouns (though not from Lojban selbri). > > Very nice parallel! The earliest, anteantepenultimate version of *my* doctoral thesis was on this sort of thing. It was working on semantics that in the end made me do syntax instead. > >Put another way, it is no coincidence that in words for beginnings > >there is no counterpart of the stop/finish distinction. > > start/commencement? Sort of. Not exactly enough for me to say Yes. > Is it just a matter of telic/non-telic? Is what? The stop/finish distinction? Yes. -- Said with due deference to pc & Ivan, the pukka experts. --And.