Re: perfective counting

la lojbab. joi la .and. cusku be di'e casnu

> > And of course, if you were talking about a past event where you
> > know that the person stopped at two, you would not talk about nu
> > da'i kacporsi na'ebo li re because no other number occured.
> 
> I don't understand {bo} here,

It's required when you attach a scalar negator to a sumti.  LAhE and NAhE+BO
have essentially the same grammar: see the sumti paper s.v. "sumti qualifiers".

> > Jorge suggests a different idea when he mentions the interpretation of
> > tenselessness.  One doesn't need "da'i" if one simply presumes that in
> > dealing with future tenses, one is normally dealing with an implicit
> > ka'e or nu'o instead of ca'a.  Only an explicit "ca'a" would then be
> > incorrect.

It would be incorrect iff the event never occurs, that is.  But I would not
want to presume that "ka'e" or "nu'o" is normally the right thing in the
future tense: when I say the sun will rise tomorrow, I mean it will {ca'a}
rise.

> Are you saying that without an explicit {caa}, a bridi is unspecified
> for {caa} versus {kae} versus whatever else? I find such vagueness
> rather excessive.

Yes, he means that.  In Loglan, JCB has said (though he isn't consistent
about it) that tenseless bridi are interpreted as {ka'e} (for which he has
no equivalent).  We take tenseless bridi as having the default tense (in
the extended Lo??an sense of "tense"), whatever that may be in context.
Surely "ca'a" is the default most of the time, but not necessarily always.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.