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

Re: responses to Jorge

la lojbab cusku di'e

> >   mi prami la maris du'ibo la djan
> >   I love Mary and equally John.
> Unless I am missing something, if you say ".edu'ibo", the current language
> allows this.

Yes, but why should you be forced to use logical connectives?  Besides,
combinations with other than {.e} usually make very little sense.  I
don't like mixing logical connectives where they are not relevant.

I am not saying that the proposed extension allows to say anything new.
The forethought form already exists, and since the afterthought can be
added at no cost, why not do it?  It only makes the overall picture more

> >   mi fa'u do dei ciska gifa'u tcidu
> >   I respectively you write respectively read this.
> Likewise, only you do not need the gi.

Without the {gi} it is a tanru connector, sometimes it may make a

Again, the forethought form exists, and the afterthought form can be
made available.  Why not allow it?

> I checked both of these alternatives  with the parser and they work.  Is
> there a semantics question involved that makes the versions I suggest
> improper?

Not improper, just slightly different.  It's like asking why should
there be bridi tail connectors at all if we already have tanru

> (Actually, the semantics of fa'u are fairly undefined, but I
> would have interpreted my version of the sentence per your translation.

Why are they undefined? They seem pretty clear to me. What is the
problem with it?

> >     la djan zmadu la maris le ka ke'a dunda
> >     John is more than Mary in property "____ gives something to someone".
> >
> >     la djan zmadu la maris le ka dunda fi ke'a
> >     John is more than Mary in property "Someone gives something to ____".
> >
> >Since my proposal doesn't really require to change anything, I intend to
> >use it in the rare occasions when it would be needed, and risk being
> >misunderstood by those who don't approve.  (Currently, {ke'a} is
> >meaningless in those sentences.)
> Unless the sentence occurs in a relative clause.

Yes, that's why I said "in those sentences".  The need for them is very
rare, and when or if ever they occur in relative clauses, subscripts can
be used.  (I never intend to use subscripts, though.  If the sentence
seems to require them, better rework the sentence to something less

> Cowan had an alternate way of doing what he labelled as "lambda
> variables" that didn't have this problem, and which I thought we had
> agreed upon last LogFest, but I won't pretend to remember which proposal
> came where without a long look at my notes.

All that was agreed (as far as I understood) was that some "lambda
variable" would be added.  There was no talk about its specific form.

In one of the papers, {dakau} is proposed for this function, but in
my opinion, this doesn't work because it conflicts with the indirect
question meaning. (This can't be solved with subscripts.) For example
(still using ke'a for the "lambda"):

        la djan zmadu la maris le ka ke'a dunda makau
        John exceeds Mary in what they give.

        la djan zmadu la maris le ka dunda makau ke'a
        John exceeds Mary in what they are given.

As well as other types of indirect questions:

        la djan zmadu la maris le ka ke'a dunda xokau da
        John exceeds Mary in how many things they give.


> I'd have to dig, but am pretty sure that there is some usage of va and
> vu as tags, possibly even some dating from the JCB versions of the
> language (at least in spirit if not in actual form).

In the texts I have, negligible use, maybe two or three times, one of
them by me in a translation...  :(

> What may not have
> been used significantly is "vazi" or "vuzi".

What would they mean?  "zi" is a time magnitude.

I think this shows partly where the confusion comes from.  In
pre-historic times, ZI were supposed to be magnitudes both for time PUs
and for space VAs.  PUs and VAs were somehow corresponding time and
space tenses.

This is not how things are now.  The space counterparts of PUs are
FAhAs.  They show direction.  The space counterparts of ZIs are VAs,
they show magnitude of displacement.

In actual use, {vi} is taken as the counterpart of {ca}, where the more
"correct" would be {bu'u}.  I am not going to fight against this use of
{vi}, which seems pretty much entrenched, but it should be recognized as
somehow not conforming to specifications.

> I don't see FAhAs as having much to do with VAs - they aren't
> grammatically or semantically related to me.

The VAs give the magnitude of the displacement, the FAhAs give the
direction. The relationship between FAhA and VA is the same as
between PU and ZI, both grammatically and semantically.

> I would probably interpret
> "zi" as a tcita to mean elliptically puzi or bazi based on context and
> the tagged sumti, since that is what I use the bare "zi" as a tense to
> mean.

That's the canonical interpretation, yes.  My contention is that there
is a much more useful possible meaning for the tagged sumti, namely the
actual magnitude.  For example:

        mi ba xruti zi lei mu mentu
        I'll be back in five minutes.

> Perhaps with an obviously locational sumti, I might interpret it
> as ellipsis for vizi+FAhA i.e. a short distance away in some particular
> unstated direction from the point.

{zi} can't be used with space tenses, if I understand correctly.