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

Re: more response to jorge from lojbab

la lojbab cusku di'e
> Actually, having checked, "vi" is normally an ellipsis for "bu'uvi", and
> "zi" an ellipsis for either "bazi" or "puzi".

What does {bu'uvi} mean?  To me, adding a VA to {bu'u} makes as little
sense as adding a ZI to {ca}.  They are allowed, because adding
magnitudes makes sense with the other PUs and FAhAs, but semantically
they don't make much sense.  What could be the meaning of {bu'uvi},
{bu'uva} and {bu'uvu}?  Or of {cazi}, {caza} and {cazu}?

{vi} is not used as {bu'uvi}, at least I don't understand what {bu'uvi}
means.  {vi} is used as the simple {bu'u}.

> The thing is that you
> MUST be able to interpret these things as elliptical versions of more
> complete tenses, not that they have to be consistent.

They are complete by themselves, since tense is not an obligatory
feature in Lojban.  There can be other ellipsized parts of the tense as
well of course, but the meaning is independent of the ellipsized parts.

> Both have real
> current usages as tenses on the bridi, and the usage as sumti tcita
> right now is consistent with the bridi tense.  Your proposal separates
> the tense usage from the tcita usage,

No it does not.  The tcita usage would be exactly the same as the tense
one:  a magnitude.  The only difference would be that the tagged sumti
would be the magnitude itself instead of the origin from where the
magnitude is to be taken.

> and indeed I am not sure I see any
> ellipsis that makes a lot of sense for zi marking the sumti as you
> propose.

No ellipsis at all.  {zi} means "small time displacement", and the sumti
would simply be a specification of the small time displacement.

It is exactly the same as with the ZEhAs.  The origin is already shown
by the PUs, so nothing is lost.

> The only other case where tcita usage differs from tense/modal usage is
> for the perfectives which you often complain are backwards.

That is the only case where the tcita do indeed differ, and I extremely
dislike it, as you know.  I certainly would never propose something like
that.  In my proposal, tense and tcita usage are exactly the same.
{<tense> <selbri>} would have the same meaning as {<selbri> <tense> ku}
and {<selbri> <tense> zo'e}.


        mi pu za ze'a tcidu
        A while ago I read for a while.

        mi pu tcidu za zo'e ze'a zo'e
        A while ago I read for a while.

        mi pu tcidu za lei ci cacra ze'a pimu le cacra
        Three hours ago I read for half an hour.

Absolutely no difference between tcita and tense use.

> But even
> backwards is still a clear relationship between the tcita ZAhO and the
> tense ZAhO.

A very ad-hoc one, in my opinion.  I don't see what's unclear in my
proposed use of ZIs.

> "zi" as a tense doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in
> terms of an ellipsized sumti, using your scheme.

Why not?  {zi} is a small time displacement, what could be more natural
for the sumti than the small time displacement itself?

> >        mi ba xruti zi lei mu mentu
> >        I'll be back in five minutes.
> and I would just use "ba'o lei mu mintu" or more likely "ba'o le mintu
> mumei".

Yes, but they mean different things.  In my case, I'm saying that after
the five minutes I will be back, but maybe I arrived before that.  You
are saying that at some point after the five minutes you will be back,
maybe one hour later.  Also, you have to assume that the five minutes
are the ones that come right after now.  I grant you that that is
probably quite grokable from context, but in other cases one might want
the possiblity of being more precise.

Also, consider a slight variation:

        mi ba xruti ba le nu ko'a xruti kei zi lei mu mentu
        I'll be back five minutes after he's back.

What do you do when you need to specify both the origin and the magnitude?

>  But if "zi" was to be used as you suggest then
> by correspondence "vi" as a tcita would have to label a distance.

Yes, it would have to, but since {vi} is exceptional even now, my
proposal doesn't really affect its status.  {vi le ckafybarja} should
mean by the current interpretation "very close to the cafe", but it is
understood to mean "at/in the cafe".  So, if we keep using it like that,
it will be "wrong" whether my proposal is accepted or not.

> I don't understand lambda calculus in the least, but if the need in
> lambda calculus is for more than one variable, THAT sounds like a good
> use for a KOhA with subscripts.

I certainly prefer a new KOhA to a new PA to do the job, but I doubt
that it is worth it. Even in the examples I gave, {ke'a} could be
ellipsized quite easily. When there is no {ke'a}, and one is needed
to make things clear, the obvious assumption is that the {ke'a} goes
in the first empty slot, so:

        la djan zmadu la maris le ka dunda
        John exceeds Mary as a giver.

        la djan zmadu la maris le ka te dunda
        John exceeds Mary in being given somnething.

I don't really think it is a problem to use {ke'a} for this, and I hate
to introduce a new cmavo that is probably practically never going to
get used. However, if there is going to be one, then I'd much rather
have it in {KOhA} space, and not as a modifier of {da}.