[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ZAhO: A view from the sidelines

> Otherwise known as "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" :-)

That's where I rush in too.

> I've been trying to follow the great ZAhO debate.  It's not been easy given
> that it started before I joined the list and I barely know enough Lojban to
> figure out what's being talked about (let alone cope with the terminology),
> but I think I've sort of got it.

I think you got the idea, as far as I can tell, which doesn't mean much. Your
post summarises the points in dispute very nicely. I disagree with your 1C,
I like lojbab's answer to question 2, it is not so much a matter of long
or short time but rather one of relevance, and I agree with you on question 3.

> 1.  Are ba'o/pu'o the wrong way round?


> S:  The argument being (I think) that at the moment (possibly illogically)
>     "ba'o broda" implies "pu broda" instead of "ba broda" (and similarly for
>     "pu'o").
> C:  I didn't think that the assignments of pu'o and ba'o were illogical
>     until I started reading this debate!  "mi pu broda" is "mi broda ca lenu
>     mi pu'o cusku dei" which seems reasonable enough.

"mi pu broda" is closer to "mi broda pu le nu mi cusku dei"
Your approximation though, maybe is good enough, but notice that the pu'o
is not applied to broda. You can always relate two different times
using something like "before" or like "after".

For instance: "mi pu broda" is also "mi cusku dei ba le nu mi broda"

>     Another mnemonic is
>     that pu/ca/ba are before/while/after relative to the speaker and
>     pu'o/ca'o/ba'o are before/while/after relative to the event.

I'm sure there are many good mnemonics, for this arrangement as well as
for the more logical one. For instance "...is in the aftermath of..." is a
good enough wording for "ba'o", but this doesn't make the ZAhOs consistent
with the PUs

> Footnote 2:
>     Incidentally I note that:
>     mi broda PU mi ba brode -> mi baPU broda .i mi ba brode
>     but
>     mi broda ZAhO mi ba brode -> mi ba broda .i mi ba ZAhO brode
>     (that second one's not really correct, but I hope you see what I'm
>     getting at - it's getting late and I don't have the brainpower to figure
>     out what it ought to be).  Is this just an odd feature, or does it have
>     some real significance?  If so, what is that significance?

The rules for the semantics of PUs as sumti tcita and ZAhOs as sumti tcita
are unfortunately different. I say unfortunately because there is no
reason that requires this to be so. I think that having pu'o and ba'o the
wrong way around contributed to this difference in the tcita interpretations.

> Caveat Lector: I'm a beginner.  Please don't get too upset if large chunks
> of the above don't make sense; just try and point out the mistakes :-)

Same here. All my comments are my opinions only, and very likely wrong.:)

> co'o mi'edoi matius.

co'o mi'e xorxes