Talk:BPFK Section: Aspect

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search
Posted by bancus on Tue 30 of Mar., 2004 20:23 GMT posts: 52
I'd like to see some definition of how these cmavo work as sumtcita. — mi'e bancus
Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 30 of Mar., 2004 22:02 GMT posts: 1912

> I'd like to see some definition of how these cmavo work as sumtcita. — mi'e > bancus

Is the old Twiki BPFK area no longer reachable? I was going to direct you there for some initial thoughts on the matter but I couldn't get in. There was a lot of work done there, we don't want to lose it!

Anyway, I'm not quite sure how to approach this yet. I was planning to add examples of use under each word, including their use as sumtcita. But there are some issues to settle first. Should the definition be idiosyncratic for each cmavo? Should the whole selmaho follow the same pattern? Should there be one coherent picture for all tags?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 30 of Mar., 2004 22:02 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 01:46:54PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > I'd like to see some definition of how these cmavo work as sumtcita. > > — mi'e bancus > > Is the old Twiki BPFK area no longer reachable? I was going to direct > you there for some initial thoughts on the matter but I couldn't get > in. There was a lot of work done there, we don't want to lose it!

It's all there; just go to the previous diff of the BPFK page.

http://www.lojban.org/twiki/bin/view/BPFK/WebHome?rev=1.6

What you probably actually want, though is http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/

> Anyway, I'm not quite sure how to approach this yet. I was > planning to add examples of use under each word, including > their use as sumtcita. But there are some issues to settle first. > Should the definition be idiosyncratic for each cmavo? > Should the whole selmaho follow the same pattern? > Should there be one coherent picture for all tags?

Coherency seems like a good idea to me...

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 30 of Mar., 2004 22:56 GMT posts: 1912

> > What you probably actually want, though is http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/

Yes! Thank you.

There is some discussion on ZAhO as sumti tcita here: http://www.lojban.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=81

> > Should the definition be idiosyncratic for each cmavo? > > Should the whole selmaho follow the same pattern? > > Should there be one coherent picture for all tags? > > Coherency seems like a good idea to me...

To me too, but it involves some tampering with the status quo...

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 31 of Mar., 2004 03:23 GMT posts: 2388

Given the ambiguity of aspect markers even at home, it is not clear that regularity (even if the amount enjoyed at home) is possible. But, when the sumti being cheated is an event we can at least pick between two stories and stick with the choice everywhere: 1) the main sentence event is coordinated with the indicated aspect of the subordinated event or 2) the subordinated event is coordinated with the indicated aspect of the main event. the one follows regular tenses, the other regular aspects. I think the first makes more sense (is easier to figure out, is more useful — none of which I can prove). When we move — as we will — beyond event sumti, I suppose we should stick with our decision, but it is often unclear what that would mean. What for example, does the — to me obvious — choice of taking the superfective of a place to mark the place overshot rather than the place actually reached in describing a trip? pc Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

> I'd like to see some definition of how these cmavo work as sumtcita. — mi'e > bancus

Is the old Twiki BPFK area no longer reachable? I was going to direct you there for some initial thoughts on the matter but I couldn't get in. There was a lot of work done there, we don't want to lose it!

Anyway, I'm not quite sure how to approach this yet. I was planning to add examples of use under each word, including their use as sumtcita. But there are some issues to settle first. Should the definition be idiosyncratic for each cmavo? Should the whole selmaho follow the same pattern? Should there be one coherent picture for all tags?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Wed 31 of Mar., 2004 03:23 GMT posts: 1912

> 1) the main sentence event is coordinated > with the indicated aspect of the subordinated event or 2) the subordinated > event is coordinated with the indicated aspect of the main event. the one > follows regular tenses, the other regular aspects. I think the first makes > more sense (is easier to figure out, is more useful — none of which I can > prove).

The second is more useful for {co'a} and {co'u}, as it gives convenient ways of doing "from ..." and "until ...". But besides usefulness, the second is the one consistent with the rest of the tags. In general {broda tag zo'e} has the same sense as {tag broda}, but the first interpretation makes ZAhOs the exception to this.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 31 of Mar., 2004 17:59 GMT posts: 2388

{pu le nu da broda ku de brode} = {le nu de brode cu purci le nu da broda}

{da pu broda} = {da broda pu le nu mi bacru dei} =? {da broda pu zo�e}


In short, the main event is coordinated with (lies within) the indicated area of the subordinate event.


{da ba�o broda} =? {da broda ba�o mi bacru dei} = ? {da broda ba�o zo�e}

If these are correct, then here the subordinate event is coordinated with the marked area of the main event. If they are not correct, then the connection is a bit obscure. Perhaps {ba�o broda} amounts to {broda pu�o zo�e}, but that is clearly not quite right and other aspect markers work even less well.


The difference here is that tenses focus on the moment of speech and relate everything said to that, while aspects � in Lojban at least � focus on the event and relate everything to it. Thus, the problem for extended usage � where, for example, the cheated sumti is not an event description � comes down to figuring out what is analogous to this. In the paradigmatic case of overshooting destination x (de) to actually end up in y (di) we have the two possibilities


{da klama de za�o di} which vagues to {da za�o klama de} or

{da klama di za�o de} which comes to the same vague form.


The simplest analogy (though some would say the less plausible result) is that the cheated sumti has to lie in the overreach area of the event (going to x). Note that only this form allows the collapse {da za�o klama de} from {da klama de za�o zo�e}. On the other hand, this form does mean that the core sentence {da klama de} is � or may be � false. But, of course, that is also true of other aspects, {pu�o} at least. And also, only the second form allows the collpase {da za�o klama de} from {da klama zo�e za�o de}, which looks to be an equally plausible source. But the balance seems to lie with the first reading.

Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> 1) the main sentence event is coordinated > with the indicated aspect of the subordinated event or 2) the subordinated > event is coordinated with the indicated aspect of the main event. the one > follows regular tenses, the other regular aspects. I think the first makes > more sense (is easier to figure out, is more useful — none of which I can > prove).

The second is more useful for {co'a} and {co'u}, as it gives convenient ways of doing "from ..." and "until ...". But besides usefulness, the second is the one consistent with the rest of the tags. In general {broda zo'e} has the same sense as { broda}, but the first interpretation makes ZAhOs the exception to this.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Thu 01 of Apr., 2004 00:34 GMT posts: 1912

> In the paradigmatic case of > overshooting destination x (de) to actually end up in y (di) we have the two > possibilities > > {da klama de za�o di} which vagues to {da za�o klama de} or > > {da klama di za�o de} which comes to the same vague form.

What I find confusing about this is that the sumti tagged by za'o here is taken to be a location, whereas in general I would expect it to be a time or an event. Perhaps the example would work better with {fe'e za'o}, but I don't know.

In general, I would use the sumti tagged by za'o to indicate the point of natural completion of the event. So {za'o broda} could be expressed as {broda za'o lo nu mo'u broda}, "it is still brodaing beyond the completion of brodaing". It is of course pointless to repeat the main selbri like that, but the point of completion can also be indicated by any other event that somehow points to it. So for example

ko'a ko'e bajra javni za'o lo nu pagre le fanmo linji "They kept on racing (run competing) beyond the crossing of the finish line"

{lo nu pagre le fanmo linji} would normally indicate the natural end of the event, but the bajra javni goes on beyond that point.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Thu 01 of Apr., 2004 00:34 GMT posts: 2388

Well, take take {de} in this context as obvious abbreviation for {le nu mo'u klama de} or some such thing — or use {fe'e za'o} if you must. The travel-goal exchange seems natural. xorxes' suggestion — which I agree with in practice — seeems to be opposite of the case for the other aspects., taking out of the main event and putting it into the subordinate. Thus, the overshooting x and ending at y is {da klama di za'o de} which collapses to {da za'o klama de} (with no easy place to say where da did actually get to). As noted, the case with {zo'e} is little help, but the regular forms suggest that subordinate event lies within the scope of the aspect of the main event; that is, the point actually reached, being in the overage, is what goes with {za'o}. pc Jorge Llamb�as wrote:


> In the paradigmatic case of > overshooting destination x (de) to actually end up in y (di) we have the two > possibilities > > {da klama de za�o di} which vagues to {da za�o klama de} or > > {da klama di za�o de} which comes to the same vague form.

What I find confusing about this is that the sumti tagged by za'o here is taken to be a location, whereas in general I would expect it to be a time or an event. Perhaps the example would work better with {fe'e za'o}, but I don't know.

In general, I would use the sumti tagged by za'o to indicate the point of natural completion of the event. So {za'o broda} could be expressed as {broda za'o lo nu mo'u broda}, "it is still brodaing beyond the completion of brodaing". It is of course pointless to repeat the main selbri like that, but the point of completion can also be indicated by any other event that somehow points to it. So for example

ko'a ko'e bajra javni za'o lo nu pagre le fanmo linji "They kept on racing (run competing) beyond the crossing of the finish line"

{lo nu pagre le fanmo linji} would normally indicate the natural end of the event, but the bajra javni goes on beyond that point.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Thu 01 of Apr., 2004 00:34 GMT posts: 1912

I would understand {da klama de za'o di} to say that someone's going somewhere continues beyond some natural ending point. One way this can happen is for example by going in circles:

la djan klama le do zdani za'o lo nu ciroi pagre lo crane be zy John keeps going to your house having passed in front of it three times already.

Passing in front of the place would normally constitute an ending point to going to that place, but in this case the going continues beyond the natural ending point.

Another possibility is that we are talking of a habitual going:

la djan klama le dy tcadu za'o lo nu ro pendo be dy ba'o cliva ty John keeps going back to his hometown even after all his friends have left it.

I don't think za'o can tag the new destination after an overshoot, but I don't think the x2 of klama will take the new destination either. x2 will always remain the original destination, as that is the event which we are looking at and whose aspects we are considering.

mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Thu 01 of Apr., 2004 20:18 GMT posts: 2388

Well, we are torn between two intuitions with no firm guides. (1) The overachieved event is clearly going to x, so ending in fact at y is irrelevant and part of the overage, thus after the {za'o} in parallel with the more nearly temporal forms (typically, {le nu mi bacru dei} implicitly). On the other hand, (2) the true claim is that the traveller got to y and that he did so by overshooting x, which suggests that the mention of x goes into the subordinate clause. As far as I can tell, most of the analogies favor 1 and yet 2 seems the more natural in most contexts.

This is all about a single event, of course. What to do with habitual or repeated events is harder to say. So the above problems arise with "He kept on running after he finished the race" but may not work for "He kept on running after he turned 70." Of course, the "after" suggests other solutions outside {za'o}.

All of which I think that Aspect is not ready to be tied up yet. Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

I would understand {da klama de za'o di} to say that someone's going somewhere continues beyond some natural ending point. One way this can happen is for example by going in circles:

la djan klama le do zdani za'o lo nu ciroi pagre lo crane be zy John keeps going to your house having passed in front of it three times already.

Passing in front of the place would normally constitute an ending point to going to that place, but in this case the going continues beyond the natural ending point.

Another possibility is that we are talking of a habitual going:

la djan klama le dy tcadu za'o lo nu ro pendo be dy ba'o cliva ty John keeps going back to his hometown even after all his friends have left it.

I don't think za'o can tag the new destination after an overshoot, but I don't think the x2 of klama will take the new destination either. x2 will always remain the original destination, as that is the event which we are looking at and whose aspects we are considering.

mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 04:20 GMT posts: 14214

I'll probably have more later, but:

I'm a little surprised that you didn't include any of the various complements to za'o that have been proposed (starting to early, starting too late, ending too early, probabyl others). Any particular reason?

"acheivative" makes perfect sense to me: it is the moment of acheivement of the event. "achievative" makes sense for mi co'i klama, but "punctual" makes sense for mi klama co'i le nu do klama. Not sure what, if anything, to do about that.

Last thing: your proposal really should include keywords. Allow me to suggest that in cases where you've changed the aspect word that the keywords include both versions.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 04:28 GMT posts: 14214

This sentence:

When tagging a sumti, the sumti indicates an event in the aftermath of the situation that is no longer taking place.

makes basically no sense to me. Sorry. Same with the other, similar sentence througout.

I'm not even sure how to describe *why* it makes no sense to me.

I guess it's because it doesn't explain what relationship the tagged sumti has to the rest of the sentence (if any). as written, it sounds like tagging a sumti with ba'o causes the whole sentence to be something that has ceased happening, which I'm pretty sure is incorrect:

mi klama ba'o le nu do klamaI go after you go; agnostic about whether my going has occured, will occur, or is occuring.

Suggested rewrite:

Tagging a sumti with ba'o indicates that the rest of the sentence occurs after the event described by that sumti.

You can probably do better than that, though.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 04:31 GMT posts: 14214

> rlpowell: > Last thing: your proposal really should include keywords. Allow me to suggest that in cases where you've changed the aspect word that the keywords include both versions.

There should also somewhere be glossing suggestions, please;"during" for ca'o, "in the aftermath of" for ba'o, etc. This stuff is already in the current definitions, and can just be copied. Losing information seems overall like a bad thing. Feel free to use whole sentences though; "A suggested gloss for this word is "in the aftermath of ..."", or whatever.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 04:35 GMT posts: 14214

You have:

ze'a lo nanca be li so'i ba'o jamna i ku'i za'o cortu

The war has been over for years, but the pain is still with us.

Isn't that glossing still non-official?

(fourth post and I haven't finished with the first definition, waaah!)

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 04:39 GMT posts: 14214

It seems to me that it would be useful to have intermediate glossings of the example, i.e. (ignoring what ze'a might mean):

ze'a lo nanca be li so'i ba'o jamna i ku'i za'o cortu

During a medium interval of a duration of years measuring the number many in the aftermath of war. However, continuing too long pain.

The war has been over for years, but the pain is still with us

This is very much a wish-list item, and if that example wasn't enough to make you run screaming in fear, I'd even be happy to do the work.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 04:42 GMT posts: 14214

le bi'unai stuzi ji'a cu se carvi piso'i snime i ji'a zukte zbasu lo drata ca'o lo nu mi'o zvati sy

This place also got a lot of snow plus they were busy making more the whole time we were there.

I don't read "lo drata" that way, I read it as "the other things". I suggest "lo jmina" or "lo panra".

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 04:44 GMT posts: 14214

> rlpowell: > le bi'unai stuzi ji'a cu se carvi piso'i snime i ji'a zukte > zbasu lo drata ca'o lo nu mi'o zvati sy > > This place also got a lot of snow plus they were busy > making more the whole time we were there. > > I don't read "lo drata" that way, I read it as "the other things". I suggest "lo jmina" or "lo panra".

Even more picky: "whole time" deserves a ze'e

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 04:48 GMT posts: 14214

"lo gugde be lo elfe bei"

That looks amazingly silly to me in a standards document, but I'm not going to vote against it on that basis, assuming that's a valid fu'ivla.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 07:24 GMT posts: 14214

In case I haven't said this already, I really want to compliment your work on the examples. In particular, I thought "i ku'i co'i ma lo cevni nu zukte cu punji lo pruxi lo fukpi tarbi pe ne'i lo cipra tu'urvau i xu go'i co'i sai lo nu co'a bu'u jmive" was just great. Good job!

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 07:37 GMT posts: 14214

WRT:

da'i le ninmu cu ponse le pano rijno sicni gi'e cirko pa ri i xu ny na cikygau lo tergu'i gi'e lumci lo zdani gi'e junri sisku co'u lo nu facki

Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?

Two things:

1. You don't "awaken" a lamp in my universe. I read that as "become concious of the light". Not sure what goes there, but please not cikygau.

2. It seems to me that that doesn't fit the current definition of co'u. It certainly doesn't fit my understanding of it. The current definition says "at the ending point of". It seems to me that that means that "broda co'u le nu brode" is "broda occurs at the ending point of le nu brode" or maybe "at the same time as the ending of le nu brode".

This is not a criticism per se, since your definitions are more consistent with the rest of za'o, I just wanted to make sure it was pointed out and if I'm right and this does constitute a change, it is clearly marked as such.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 07:46 GMT posts: 14214

> rlpowell: > WRT: > > da'i le ninmu cu ponse le pano rijno sicni gi'e cirko pa ri i xu ny na > cikygau lo tergu'i gi'e lumci lo zdani gi'e junri sisku co'u lo nu facki > > Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not > light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?

I just realized: how could anything be more "mo'u" than finding something one was searching for? Doesn't seem like "co'u" at all to me.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 08:02 GMT posts: 14214

WRT:

ja'e lo xlamau mi ze'a lo masti be li ji'ixa cu de'a sai lumci lo mi flira fo lo mokau jisygau

To make things worse, I pretty much stopped washing my face with any kind of cleanser for about six months.

"To make things worse" is an added piece of information; ja'e is a causative.

WRT:

le kulnu be lo pruxa'u natmi cu ze'u pu'o daspo canci

The culture of the indigenous peoples was for a long time on the verge of being eradicated.

Very minor: pu'o alone doesn't say "on the verge of" to me. "pu'o zi", perhaps?

WRT:

mi'a ponse le kesma'e noi pa'arcau selcfi i ky traji lo ka malkelci kei la starflit i lo matra za'o po'urbi'o i lo santa za'o fliba

Here we had this hopeless lemon of a starship - the biggest piece of shit in Starfleet: engines that kept breaking down, shields that kept failing.

To me, "kept" in both places seems to be pretty clearly "ru'i" and not "za'o". What event is being surpassed? The event of us wanting them to be broken?

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 08:03 GMT posts: 14214

I don't think I've got a handle on the before-and-after of your changes.

I was going to write:

WRT:

mi tolji'a lo samci'e nunkei pu'o lo nu mi cpacu lo norji'a pinka

I was about to lose a network game, when I got a Tiebreaker notice.

That just doesn't work. By the convention you are using, the Lojban says "I lose/lost a network game, and before that I got a Tiebreaker notice". In contrast, the English implies that the game was not in fact lost, due to the interruption. You need some kind of indication of counterfactuality on the main bridi, or something.

-- but now I'm not so sure.

It would help me a lot if, for each of the examples in the Impact section, you gave a Before translation and an After translation.

At least one example in the Impact section does not use pu'o or ba'o, but your Notes section implies that only they have changed. Please resolve this.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of May, 2004 08:13 GMT posts: 14214

> rlpowell: > > rlpowell: > > Last thing: your proposal really should include keywords. Allow me to suggest that in cases where you've changed the aspect word that the keywords include both versions. > > There should also somewhere be glossing suggestions, please;"during" for ca'o, "in the aftermath of" for ba'o, etc. This stuff is already in the current definitions, and can just be copied. Losing information seems overall like a bad thing. Feel free to use whole sentences though; "A suggested gloss for this word is "in the aftermath of ..."", or whatever.

Furthermore, conversion formula for sumti tcita would be lovely. If, as the PHPBB implies, broda ba'o le nu brode == ba'o broda ca le nu brode, please say so in each definition (since the definitions must stand alone). (Note that I'm saying this last bit as a commissioner, not as jatna).

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 15:15 GMT

coi robin mi do ckire lo nu pinka

> I'm a little surprised that you didn't include any of the various complements > to za'o that have been proposed (starting to early, starting too late, ending > too early, probabyl others). Any particular reason?

I've now added xa'o (occuring too early).

za'o is not really about starting or ending, it is not a change of state point like co'a/co'u/mo'u/di'a but about an aspectual region, like ca'o. We have:

region 1 | expected start | region 2 |expected end | region 3

ca'o says the event occurs in region 2. za'o says the event occurs in region 3. xa'o says the event occurs in region 1.

To refer to the actual points of early/late start and early/late end is a different issue. (Not too sure how to do them right now.)

> "acheivative" makes perfect sense to me: it is the moment of acheivement of > the event.

Isn't that {mo'u}?

> "achievative" makes sense for mi co'i klama, but "punctual" > makes sense for mi klama co'i le nu do klama. Not sure what, if > anything, to do about that. > > Last thing: your proposal really should include keywords. Allow me to > suggest that in cases where you've changed the aspect word that the keywords > include both versions.

Should the keyword be something like "initiative" or something like "start", or something like "from"? What are they for?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 15:16 GMT

> ze'a lo nanca be li so'i ba'o jamna i ku'i za'o cortu > The war has been over for years, but the pain is still with us. > > Isn't that glossing still non-official?

Do you mean for {ze'a}? There has never been disagreement about that one, {za} is the tricky one. CLL has some example with a ZEhA.

mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 15:16 GMT

> Re: BPFK Section: Aspect > le bi'unai stuzi ji'a cu se carvi piso'i snime i ji'a zukte > zbasu lo drata ca'o lo nu mi'o zvati sy > > This place also got a lot of snow plus they were busy > making more the whole time we were there. > > I don't read "lo drata" that way, I read it as "the other things". I suggest > "lo jmina" or "lo panra". > > -Robin

I agree {lo drata} is not quite right, "more" in this sense is always a problem. {lo jmina} refers to someone who adds something to something else. Perhaps {lo se jmina}. I don't see how {lo panra} would apply either.

mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:53 GMT

rlpowell: > da'i le ninmu cu ponse le pano rijno sicni gi'e cirko pa ri i xu ny na > cikygau lo tergu'i gi'e lumci lo zdani gi'e junri sisku co'u lo nu facki > > Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not > light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? > > Two things: > > 1. You don't "awaken" a lamp in my universe. I read that as "become > concious of the light". Not sure what goes there, but please not cikygau.

How could it possibly mean "become conscious of the lamp"? {cikygau} can only mean "x1 makes x2 awake", that's as standard as you can get with lujvo. "Become conscious of" is {sajbi'o}. {cikna} and {sanji} are different things.

As for lamps being awake when they light up, I welcome other suggestions. I used this already in the Petit Prince translation. I don't see much of a problem in extending cikna to non-living things: "x1 is awake/alert/conscious/switched-on/functioning".

> 2. It seems to me that that doesn't fit the current definition of co'u. It > certainly doesn't fit my understanding of it. The current definition says > "at the ending point of". It seems to me that that means that "broda co'u le > nu brode" is "broda occurs at the ending point of le nu brode" or maybe "at > the same time as the ending of le nu brode".

The current definition of co'u as tcita is as you say "at the ending point of ...", but I propose that it should be "ending at ...", which agrees better with usage and with all other non-ZAhO tcita.

> This is not a criticism per se, since your definitions are more consistent > with the rest of za'o, I just wanted to make sure it was pointed out and if > I'm right and this does constitute a change, it is clearly marked as such.

Yes, all ZAhO as tcita definitions are a change with respect to CLL (but not always wrt usage).

mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:53 GMT

> > da'i le ninmu cu ponse le pano rijno sicni gi'e cirko pa ri i xu ny na > > cikygau lo tergu'i gi'e lumci lo zdani gi'e junri sisku co'u lo nu > facki > > > > Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not > > light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? > > I just realized: how could anything be more "mo'u" than finding something one > was searching for? Doesn't seem like "co'u" at all to me.

co'u is not wrong when mo'u applies, but I will move the example to mo'u and put something else there for co'u.

mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:53 GMT

rlpowell: > > le bi'unai stuzi ji'a cu se carvi piso'i snime i ji'a zukte > > zbasu lo drata ca'o lo nu mi'o zvati sy > > This place also got a lot of snow plus they were busy > > making more the whole time we were there. > > Even more picky: "whole time" deserves a ze'e

{ze'e} would indicate that the making lasts for ever. All they are saying is that it covered the whole interval they were there, i.e. that it was ongoing over that interval (having started before and ending perhaps later).

ZEhAs give the duration of the main event. In this case, we don't know the full duration of the main event, we only know that the main event completely overlaps another event. That's when I think ca'o should be used.

mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:54 GMT

> Re: BPFK Section: Aspect > WRT: > > ja'e lo xlamau mi ze'a lo masti be li ji'ixa cu > de'a sai lumci lo mi flira fo lo mokau jisygau > > To make things worse, I pretty much stopped washing > my face with any kind of cleanser for about six months. > > "To make things worse" is an added piece of information; ja'e is a causative.

ja'e is a resultative, not a causative. That things get worse is the result of the rest.

> WRT: > > le kulnu be lo pruxa'u natmi cu ze'u pu'o daspo canci > > The culture of the indigenous peoples was for a long > time on the verge of being eradicated. > > Very minor: pu'o alone doesn't say "on the verge of" to me. "pu'o zi", > perhaps?

With the current grammar, {pu'o zi} becomes {pu'o ku zi}, so it would no longer be a selbri tcita example.

> WRT: > > mi'a ponse le kesma'e noi pa'arcau selcfi i ky traji lo ka malkelci > kei la starflit i lo matra za'o po'urbi'o i lo santa za'o fliba > > Here we had this hopeless lemon of a starship - the biggest > piece of shit in Starfleet: engines that kept breaking down, > shields that kept failing. > > To me, "kept" in both places seems to be pretty clearly "ru'i" and not > "za'o". What event is being surpassed? The event of us wanting them to be > broken?

They kept breaking down and failing even after being fixed. But yes, I'll change it.

ki'e mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:54 GMT

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:28:00AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > --- Robin wrote: > > ze'a lo nanca be li so'i ba'o jamna i ku'i za'o cortu The war has > > been over for years, but the pain is still with us. > > > > Isn't that glossing still non-official? > > Do you mean for {ze'a}? There has never been disagreement about that > one, {za} is the tricky one. CLL has some example with a ZEhA.

Oh! r0x0r. Thanks.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:54 GMT

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 07:55:38AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > --- Robin wrote: > > Re: BPFK Section: Aspect > > le bi'unai stuzi ji'a cu se carvi piso'i snime i ji'a zukte > > zbasu lo drata ca'o lo nu mi'o zvati sy > > > > This place also got a lot of snow plus they were busy making more > > the whole time we were there. > > > > I don't read "lo drata" that way, I read it as "the other things". > > I suggest "lo jmina" or "lo panra". > > I agree {lo drata} is not quite right, "more" in this sense is always > a problem. {lo jmina} refers to someone who adds something to > something else. Perhaps {lo se jmina}. I don't see how {lo panra} > would apply either.

zbasu lo panra be ri == "making things equivalent to the thing I just mentioned" == "making more of it".

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:54 GMT

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 06:58:56AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > coi robin mi do ckire lo nu pinka

..ui

> > "acheivative" makes perfect sense to me: it is the moment of > > acheivement of the event. > > Isn't that {mo'u}?

Ack. I'm so used to "acheivative" that I can no longer properly answer the question.

> > Last thing: your proposal really should include keywords. Allow me > > to suggest that in cases where you've changed the aspect word that > > the keywords include both versions. > > Should the keyword be something like "initiative" or something like > "start", or something like "from"? What are they for?

They are for two things:

1. drop-in replacement when translating from english (i.e. gloss words)

2. dictionary lookups

You should have as many as you think makes sense. Clearly "initiative" would be one. "start" should probably be another. Beyond that, I don't know.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:54 GMT

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 08:05:13AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > rlpowell: > > > le bi'unai stuzi ji'a cu se carvi piso'i snime i ji'a zukte > > > zbasu lo drata ca'o lo nu mi'o zvati sy > > > > > > This place also got a lot of snow plus they were busy making > > > more the whole time we were there. > > > > Even more picky: "whole time" deserves a ze'e > > {ze'e} would indicate that the making lasts for ever.

In a subordinate clause? "ca'o le nu ze'e mi'o zvati zy" should mean "during the whole time interval of us being there".

> All they are saying is that it covered the whole interval they were > there, i.e. that it was ongoing over that interval (having started > before and ending perhaps later).

True.

> ZEhAs give the duration of the main event. In this case, we don't know > the full duration of the main event, we only know that the main event > completely overlaps another event. That's when I think ca'o should be > used.

OK. Say so on the page, please. No offense intended, but it's a little short on comprehensibilty to us mere mortals.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:54 GMT

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 08:38:43AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > rlpowell: > > da'i le ninmu cu ponse le pano rijno sicni gi'e cirko pa ri i xu > > ny na cikygau lo tergu'i gi'e lumci lo zdani gi'e junri sisku > > co'u lo nu facki > > > > Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she > > not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she > > finds it? > > > > Two things: > > > > 1. You don't "awaken" a lamp in my universe. I read that as > > "become concious of the light". Not sure what goes there, but > > please not cikygau. > > How could it possibly mean "become conscious of the lamp"? {cikygau} > can only mean "x1 makes x2 awake", that's as standard as you can get > with lujvo. "Become conscious of" is {sajbi'o}. {cikna} and {sanji} > are different things.

Sorry; that was me being confused.

> As for lamps being awake when they light up, I welcome other > suggestions.

Something with sazri and/or cfari and/or gasnu.

> I used this already in the Petit Prince translation.

La la la la not listening!

> I don't see much of a problem in extending cikna to non-living things: > "x1 is awake/alert/conscious/switched-on/functioning".

I see your point.

> > 2. It seems to me that that doesn't fit the current definition of > > co'u. It certainly doesn't fit my understanding of it. The current > > definition says "at the ending point of". It seems to me that that > > means that "broda co'u le nu brode" is "broda occurs at the ending > > point of le nu brode" or maybe "at the same time as the ending of le > > nu brode". > > The current definition of co'u as tcita is as you say "at the ending > point of ...", but I propose that it should be "ending at ...", which > agrees better with usage and with all other non-ZAhO tcita.

OK, *that's* the kind of thing I want to see in the definition please, as a key-word or otherwise. It should be easy for someone *not* familiar with the issues to understand exactly what your definitions mean.

> > This is not a criticism per se, since your definitions are more > > consistent with the rest of za'o, I just wanted to make sure it was > > pointed out and if I'm right and this does constitute a change, it > > is clearly marked as such. > > Yes, all ZAhO as tcita definitions are a change with respect to CLL > (but not always wrt usage).

OK. Please make that more clear.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:54 GMT

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 08:46:36AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > > da'i le ninmu cu ponse le pano rijno sicni gi'e cirko pa ri i > > > xu ny na cikygau lo tergu'i gi'e lumci lo zdani gi'e junri > > > sisku co'u lo nu > > facki > > > > > > Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she > > > not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until > > > she finds it? > > > > I just realized: how could anything be more "mo'u" than finding > > something one was searching for? Doesn't seem like "co'u" at all to > > me. > > co'u is not wrong when mo'u applies,

It's not? Oh, no, it's not. Sorry.

> but I will move the example to mo'u and put something else there for > co'u.

Thanks!

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Thu 13 of May, 2004 19:54 GMT

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:15:22AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > Re: BPFK Section: Aspect WRT: > > > > ja'e lo xlamau mi ze'a lo masti be li ji'ixa cu de'a sai lumci lo mi > > flira fo lo mokau jisygau > > > > To make things worse, I pretty much stopped washing my face with any > > kind of cleanser for about six months. > > > > "To make things worse" is an added piece of information; ja'e is a > > causative. > > ja'e is a resultative, not a causative.

There's a difference? I though the one was the inverse of the other.

> That things get worse is the result of the rest.

Oh! OK, I see it now.

> > WRT: > > > > le kulnu be lo pruxa'u natmi cu ze'u pu'o daspo canci > > > > The culture of the indigenous peoples was for a long time on the > > verge of being eradicated. > > > > Very minor: pu'o alone doesn't say "on the verge of" to me. "pu'o > > zi", perhaps? > > With the current grammar, {pu'o zi} becomes {pu'o ku zi}, so it would > no longer be a selbri tcita example.

Bah. pu'o je zi?

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

arjPosted by arj on Fri 14 of May, 2004 20:13 GMT posts: 953

Thanks, by the way, for all the different clarifications you have done to this section. Great work! However:

> > I'm a little surprised that you didn't include any of the various complements > > to za'o that have been proposed (starting to early, starting too late, ending > > too early, probabyl others). Any particular reason? > > I've now added xa'o (occuring too early).

I'm not entirely against adding a new cmavo to fill a perceived gap. But assigning such a cmavo to the xVV series essentially overturns the age-old rule that says that that series should be perpetually reserved for experimental cmavo. I don't think we should do that lightly.

For that reason only, I'm voting against this for the moment. It might be a good idea to consider either a) taking one of the precious few unsassigned "main namespace" cmavo forms for it, or b) abandoning the "already" aspect altogether.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

adminPosted by admin on Fri 14 of May, 2004 21:09 GMT posts: 208

> arj: > > > I'm a little surprised that you didn't include any of the various complements > > > to za'o that have been proposed (starting to early, starting too late, ending > > > too early, probabyl others). Any particular reason? > > > > I've now added xa'o (occuring too early). > > I'm not entirely against adding a new cmavo to fill a perceived gap. But assigning such a cmavo to the xVV series essentially overturns the age-old rule that says that that series should be perpetually reserved for experimental cmavo.

I'm annoyed with myself that I didn't notice that.

> I don't think we should do that lightly.

We most certainly should not.

> For that reason only, I'm voting against this for the moment. It might be a good idea to consider either a) taking one of the precious few unsassigned "main namespace" cmavo forms for it, or b) abandoning the "already" aspect altogether.

I'd rather the former than the latter; asymmetry annoys me.

I want to make it clear that I have nothing *against* opening up a section of experimental cmavo space. It's not my preference at this time, but I have nothing against it in principle.

  • However*, as jatna I must insist that any proposal that does so make it clear that this is occuring, in nice big letters, including how much of the experimental space you are proposing to allocate for non-experimental use.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Fri 14 of May, 2004 23:31 GMT

arj: > I'm not entirely against adding a new cmavo to fill a perceived gap. But > assigning such a cmavo to the xVV series essentially overturns the age-old > rule that says that that series should be perpetually reserved for > experimental cmavo.

The form {xa'o} has the advantage that it was first proposed in 1993, so it has some history behind it and many people already recognize it. It is also one of the very few unofficial cmavo that actually gets used. Personally, I don't have a problem with giving it a new form, but it seems that the xVV space is pointless then: if some xVV cmavo is successful and gets used, it has no chance of becoming official under the form that people recognize it? If that is how things work, it is much better when proposing an experimental cmavo to not use a xVV form, just in case the cmavo is successful. (In fact, that's what people tend to do now it would seem, for example with {mu'ei} which is another of the very few that get used.)

rlpowell: > I want to make it clear that I have nothing *against* opening up a section of > experimental cmavo space. It's not my preference at this time, but I have > nothing against it in principle. > > *However*, as jatna I must insist that any proposal that does so make it > clear that this is occuring, in nice big letters, including how much of the > experimental space you are proposing to allocate for non-experimental use.

I'm probably missing something on the philosophy of the experimental space. What is the correct way to use it? Is CVVV space different from xVV space in this respect?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 15 of May, 2004 01:21 GMT

On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 03:54:15PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > (In fact, that's what people tend to do now it would seem, for example > with {mu'ei} which is another of the very few that get used.)

mu'ei is also in experimental space.

> I'm probably missing something on the philosophy of the experimental > space. What is the correct way to use it?

A simple cmavo thus has the property of having only one or two vowels, or of having a single consonant followed by one or two vowels. Words consisting of three or more vowels in a row, or a single consonant followed by three or more vowels, are also of cmavo form, but are reserved for experimental use: a few examples are ``ku'a'e, ``sau'e, and ``bai'ai. All CVV cmavo beginning with the letter ``x are also reserved for experimental use. In general, though, the form of a cmavo tells you little or nothing about its grammatical use.

``Experimental use means that the language designers will not assign any standard meaning or usage to these words, and words and usages coined by Lojban speakers will not appear in official dictionaries for the indefinite future. Experimental-use words provide an escape hatch for adding grammatical mechanisms (as opposed to semantic concepts) the need for which was not foreseen.

My reading of that is that to actually officially publish a cmavo, it must not be in experimental space. This means either re-allocating experimental space, or changing the cmavo.

> Is CVVV space different from xVV space in this respect?

Not that I'm aware of.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 15 of May, 2004 07:46 GMT

On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 03:54:15PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > The form {xa'o} has the advantage that it was first proposed in 1993, > so it has some history behind it and many people already recognize it. > It is also one of the very few unofficial cmavo that actually gets used. > Personally, I don't have a problem with giving it a new form, but it > seems that the xVV space is pointless then: if some xVV cmavo is successful > and gets used, it has no chance of becoming official under the form that > people recognize it? If that is how things work, it is much better > when proposing an experimental cmavo to not use a xVV form, just in case > the cmavo is successful. (In fact, that's what people tend to do now it > would seem, for example with {mu'ei} which is another of the very few > that get used.)

Is {mu'ei} still used? I thought the "discovery" of {ka'e } made it unnecessary (and also has the advantage of not having the silly quantifier on it).

I was one of the proponents of {mu'ei}, but now I don't see its point. -- Rob Speer

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 15 of May, 2004 22:49 GMT

> Is {mu'ei} still used? I thought the "discovery" of {ka'e } made > it unnecessary (and also has the advantage of not having the silly > quantifier on it).

{ka'e} is {su'omu'ei}. The most useful {mu'ei}, the one that can be used for if...then... constructions, is {romu'ei}, which does not have a KAhE equivalent.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Sun 16 of May, 2004 05:25 GMT posts: 14214

xorxes has removed xa'o, I have updated the checkpoints page in response, and my vote is now Yes.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 16 of May, 2004 07:53 GMT

On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 03:03:48PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Rob Speer wrote: > > Is {mu'ei} still used? I thought the "discovery" of {ka'e } made > > it unnecessary (and also has the advantage of not having the silly > > quantifier on it). > > {ka'e} is {su'omu'ei}. The most useful {mu'ei}, the one that can be > used for if...then... constructions, is {romu'ei}, which does not > have a KAhE equivalent.

Hmm. Wouldn't that be {ca'a}, then? -- Rob Speer

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Sun 16 of May, 2004 07:54 GMT posts: 14214

> rlpowell: > xorxes has removed xa'o, I have updated the checkpoints page in response, and my vote is now Yes. > > -Robin

This didn't get through the first time; problem fixed.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 16 of May, 2004 13:57 GMT

> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 03:03:48PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > {ka'e} is {su'omu'ei}. The most useful {mu'ei}, the one that can be > > used for if...then... constructions, is {romu'ei}, which does not > > have a KAhE equivalent. > > Hmm. Wouldn't that be {ca'a}, then?

{romu'ei} is "in every possible world". {ca'a} is "in this world".

{romu'ei} entails {ca'a}, but not the other way around.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 16 of May, 2004 17:11 GMT

On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 06:33:19AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Rob Speer wrote: > > On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 03:03:48PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > {ka'e} is {su'omu'ei}. The most useful {mu'ei}, the one that can be > > > used for if...then... constructions, is {romu'ei}, which does not > > > have a KAhE equivalent. > > > > Hmm. Wouldn't that be {ca'a}, then? > > {romu'ei} is "in every possible world". > {ca'a} is "in this world". > > {romu'ei} entails {ca'a}, but not the other way around.

But what about {ca'a }? If that still means "in this world", it's pretty useless. But it seems to me to be kind of like a space tense: {viku} means "here/very nearby", while {vi le tricu} means "at/near the tree".

-- Rob Speer

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 17 of May, 2004 00:57 GMT

Miscellany from this week�s discussion

<

something one was searching for? Doesn't seem like "co'u" at all to me.>>

Searching (and, I think, lo nu sisku) is an activity, not a process, so it does not strictly have a natural ending point, the completion of the process. Finding, on the other hand, is an achievement and so has only an ending � is a point-event. On the other hand, seeking does have a natural ending in the {za�o} sense � a point after which continuing to search is inappropriate � namely finding. So, there is a sense in which {mo�u sisku} just is �find� (which does not properly have a continuative or an initiative or an inchoative, though it can have these metaphorically, especially of searches that are pretty sure to succeed).

The {mo�u}-{co�u} contrast brings up another point. For processes, I assume that the contrast is (probably implicitly � Grice and all) between finishing the job and stopping with the job undone and no intention of going on with it.

The latter is close to another potential aspect, which, if explicit, could be used for activities as well: stopping too soon (parallel to {za�o}, going on too long/far). And that raises the issue � raised later in the week � of the mirrors of these, starting too soon or too late, for one of which {xa�o} has been proposed and challenged. So far as I can find, no language has in its aaspect system � indeed, systematically at all � any of the three suggested additions. This is not, of course a reason for Lojban not to have them and the obvious symmetries involved (which match those in the rest of the aspects, more or less) argue for them. Strictly, only one more item is needed, either �begins too soon� or �ends too soon� as the other can be dealt with by negating the predicate behind the aspect �p ends too soon� is just �not-p begins too soon� and conversely. �begins too late� can already be handled by �not-p goes on too long.� The problem with this is that �too long� etc. as defined (implicitly) in terms of some time or event that is obvioulsy associated with the event said to be too whatever. And the event which has the boundart is rarely the negative one � except indirectly from the positive one it bounds. In short, if we are to expand the aspect system to cover other �off the right time� aspects along with the superfective, we probably ought to put the lot in separately, not work out idioms for some. I am � thanks to a native language bias perhaps � not convinced we need any of them beyond superfective (and that is open to challenge � does it get used?).


<<"To make things worse" is an added piece of information; ja'e is a

causative.>>

Not really, resultative — with no indication of what kind of result: it can apparently be used for conclusions as well as effects, for example. �As a worse result� or some such for {ja�e lo xlamau}.


<< pu'o alone doesn't say "on the verge of" to me. "pu'o zi",

perhaps?>>

To be sure, {pu�o} doesn�t have a metric (no aspect does) but surely by the time that anything is clearly going to happen, it is OK to say �on the verge of happening� Of course, it apprently did not happen, but that is the ongoing problem with {pu�o} � and �started too soon� as well � the event may never start at all, perhaps even because someone jumped the gun.


<

"za'o". What event is being surpassed? The event of us wanting them

to be broken?>>

The event (probably repeated) of fixing the critter. I don�t think wanting them broken enters in here. Being fixed (or operating correctly) is the natural ending of somethiing being broken. And indeed, the break-downs seem to be repeated not continuous nor continual.


<


I was about to lose a network game, when I got a Tiebreaker notice.


That just doesn't work. By the convention you are using, the Lojban

says "I lose/lost a network game, and before that I got a Tiebreaker

notice". In contrast, the English implies that the game was not in fact

lost, due to the interruption. You need some kind of indication of

counterfactuality on the main bridi, or something.>>

It is examples like this that make sense of the alternate (original?) convention, which puts the inchoate event (the aspect space defining event) in the subordinate clause. Or the English may just not be right here but rather for {mi po�u tolji�a lo samce�I nunkei ca lo nu mi cpaculo norji�a pinka} (or some such) while the text should be read as �I lost the network game when I was about to get a Tiebreaker notice.� Getting the intuitions all in a row on this (but that may not be possible) is a large part of why I keep thinking that aspect is not so nearly done.


<

state

point like co'a/co'u/mo'u/di'a but about an aspectual region, like

ca'o.

We have:


region 1 | expected start | region 2 |expected end | region 3


ca'o says the event occurs in region 2.

za'o says the event occurs in region 3.

xa'o says the event occurs in region 1.


To refer to the actual points of early/late start and early/late

end is a different issue. (Not too sure how to do them right now.)>>


Nice point and basically right. So the �too soon� is not about the start but about the doing � running down the track before the gun goes off, not about jumping the gun (note that {za�o} is appropriate even if the person has not yet stopped, so long as the proper stopping time is past). Viewed in this light, the �keeps on not p-ing� for �starts too late� (or so)actually makes good sense, since that is what does fill that space. It also reduces the usefulness of the whole array of additions, I think. And then perhaps �going on to soon� is just �going on in the inchoative or everyone else going on� (but probably not: nor is premature stopping just stopping when everyone else is continuating). I think our intuitions just are going to be in constant conflict with themselves in all this. I can see not point in the forms for actual off-time starts and stops: the usefuless is probaby of a frequency appropriate to modal predicate with event object.


<'

But assigning such a cmavo to the xVV series essentially overturns the

age-old rule that says that that series should be perpetually reserved

for experimental cmavo. I don't think we should do that lightly.


For that reason only, I'm voting against this for the moment. It might

be a good idea to consider either a) taking one of the precious few

unsassigned "main namespace" cmavo forms for it, or b) abandoning the

"already" aspect altogether.>>


I don�t see how this violates the notion that xVV is for experimental usage. Surely, if that usage becomes standard then the word has ipso facto ceased to be experimental. It would be just silly to say �Hey this xVV word really fills a need so lets change it to something else.� This would involve both relearning and unlearning, neither things that Lojbanners do well. But, more to the point, {xa�o} is experimental at this point, even if it is being put into some list. So far as I can find, it has not been used except by xorxes and that not much. And, as I said above, I am not at all sure there is sufficient reason to add these critters anyhow.


<} made

it unnecessary (and also has the advantage of not having the silly

quantifier on it).>>


I take it that what was discovered about {ka�e}(I can�t find the references involved) was that it was the wrong form in the wrong category. �Is innately capable of� hasn�t been a real modal (like �It is possible that�) for a couple centuries and even when it was it was predicative, not ancillary. That is, what {ka�e} used officially to mean was correctly handled by {kakne}, freeing {ka�e} for the real modal possibility. The {mu�ei} world stuff is one standard interpretation of that and has uses as well for other things � the ever problematic contrary-to-facts, for example. So both have roles to play.


<

used for if...then... constructions, is {romu'ei}, which does not

have a KAhE equivalent.>>


Useful for nomic if-thens but not for counterfactuals. The absence of a logical �It is necessary that� is a more serious flaw in Lojban than all the conceivable aspects put together.


<}? If that still means "in this world",

it's

pretty useless. But it seems to me to be kind of like a space tense:

{viku} means "here/very nearby", while {vi le tricu} means "at/near the

tree".>>


I assume that {ca�a} with a sumti means �in the world(s)where the referent of that sumti is (as with all the other sumti tcita � except maybe some tense-aspects). (The list I have mixes it up with {ca�o} as though it were an aspect, �ongoing event� — maybe even {ca ca�o}.)

pc

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 17 of May, 2004 13:33 GMT

> The absence of a > logical �It is necessary that� is a more serious flaw in > Lojban than all the conceivable aspects put together.

{bi'ai} has been proposed to fill that gap. {bi'ai} is {na ka'e na}.

> <}? If that still means "in this world", > it's > pretty useless. But it seems to me to be kind of like a space tense: > {viku} means "here/very nearby", while {vi le tricu} means "at/near the > tree".>> > > I assume that {ca�a} with a sumti means �in the world(s)where the referent of > that sumti is (as with all the other sumti tcita � except maybe some > tense-aspects).

Yes, I agree.

mi'e xorxes