From lojbab@xxxxxx.xxxx Tue Mar 2 20:36:16 1999 X-Digest-Num: 79 Message-ID: <44114.79.484.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 23:36:16 -0500 From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" >>>You and John seem to agree that {puzuku bazuku} is the same as >{puzubazuku}. >>>I checked the refgram and I can't find this mentioned there. >> >>Start with example 13.5), pg 234, combining with the discussion on page >>216, section 1 on the equivalence of tense+ku with selbri tense. > >That explains what {puzubazuku} means. Nowhere does it say what >to do when you have two separate ku tenses. By the text and examples on pg 216, 13.5) on pg 234 is equivalent to puku mi baku klama le zarci. You actually have to go one step further to combine them by making mi puku ba klama le zarci and assuming that this becomes mi puba klama le zarci and only then can you say mi pubaku klama le zarci Introducing zu or co'a or co'u should not change how this works, though the backwardsness of some of the tense/modals when used as sumti tcita might cause them to need to be reversed in some cases. >>The use >>of sequential tenses as being vector additive is the essential paradigm of >>both the imaginary journey metaphor and the storytime convention. > >That's how you construct one compound tense. It doesn't tell you >what to do when you have two non-compoundable tenses. "Noncompoundable" is a grammatical issue arising solely from what John had to do to make the grammar work under YACC and stay simple. I think it has been clearly stated on the List, if not explicitly in the Book, that two adjacent "noncompoundable" or "compoundable" for that matter tenses should be treated as if they were compounded. I am only unsure whether this was stated for particular kinds of noncompoundables or as a general case. Example 14.1) pg 236 has two tenses, but one is a sumti tcita with elided ku. If you ellipsized the sumti, you would have puzukiku ne'ikiku. Here again, I am not sure whether these are compoundable in this order pending a current parser. >>>The problem with this view is that it doesn't work in general. For >example, >>>{puco'aku baco'uku} cannot be welded into a single tense. >> >>?pau It cannot grammatically, ?ji it cannot logically be so welded > >Neither grammatically nor, as far as I can see, logically. > >>was starting the event of later ending X? > >The start of the end is {co'a co'u}. That could either be in the >past or in the future. I don't understand what you mean by >"was starting the event of later ending X". Did the ending of X >start in the past or in the future? Take an imaginary journey to the past and we have an initiation of an event. That event is the future (relative to the pu offset already stated) conclusion of X. It is not clear whether or not that conclusion is in the past or future of the space time reference. puzuco'aku bazico'uku would be in the past of the reference whereas puzico'aku bazuco'uku would be inthe future of the reference. >And of course, you'd still have to give explanations for more >complex non-compoundable posibilities, like >{puzu'aku caga'uku bari'uku}. Is this a challenge? >From the space time reference go to the past then to the right, then remain in the then-time and go up and then go to the future and then go to the right. Seems perfectly clear to me, though it would make a rather awful English tense. Back then to (my) left, he was then above going to X on the right. >The imaginary journey works well for single compound >tenses. I don't see the need to force it when you have not >one compond tense but several distinct tenses. I'm not sure if any other interpretation makes sense, so I don't see how it is "forced". Certainly not an implicit logical connective, since that can so easily be made explicit with a multiple compound tense. It's just carrying a logical pattern to a rather extreme conclusion that probably will never be useful (but pc could probably come up with an example if Nora or John couldn't). >>You could use a nonlogical interval connective to get an interval starting >>in the past and ending in the future. pubi'iba? (I'm very rusty.) > >Yes, I never said you couldn't, but that doesn't address what I said. >And {puku baku}, in my interpretation, does not describe an interval. >It describes only two time points. If they are two time points relative to the reference, then that would be puku pe'eje baku or pujebaku. A single bridi does not describe two events unless you have a roi tense or a logical connective. If you are describing a set of points for an intermittent event, you should use something like nonlogical connective ce or joi lojbab