Re: Ordinal ROI: the very idea!

["Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

la djan cusku di'e

>1)      mi pare'u klama le zarci
>        I for-the-first-time go-to the store
>
>2)      mi paroi klama le zarci
>        I once go-to the store
>
>"roi", like its vaguer equivalents in TAhE, specifies a property of the
>time (or space) interval over which the event of a bridi stretches.

"re'u", like its companions in ZAhO, specifies the phase of the
event which the bridi is describing. (For example, saying that I am
at the start of going 100 times to the store is vaguer than saying that
I go for the third time in an iterval in which I go 100 times.)

>In Example 1, however, the effect of the "pare'u" is restrictive;
>it picks out the first event within the main interval and makes it
>what the whole bridi is about.

Just like ZAhOs. They pick a phase and make it what the whole bridi
is about.

(With change 42, ZAhO and TAhE is essentially the same selmaho.)

> This makes "re'u" not operate as an
>interval modifier with respect to subintervals. Intervals subdivided
>with "roi" can be sub-subdivided by using a ZAhO and/or more "roi"/TAhE,
>for arbitrarily fine precision.  "re'u" doesn't fit into this system.

Yes it does:

        mi pare'u co'a klama le zarci
        I for the first time start going to the store.

        mi mo'u pare'u klama le zarci
        I conclude my first time going to the store.

        mi pare'u mure'u klama le zarci
        For the first time (in some interval) I go to the store
        for a fifth time (in a sub-interval). (In previous
        subintervals I went at most four times in each.)

        mi reroi rere'u klama le zarci
        I twice went to the store for a second time. (e.g. I went once
        every day this week, but Monday and Wednesday I went a second
        time.)


>Instead, its function is really parallel to that of tanru modification:
>
>3)      le nu mi klama le zarci cu krefu fi li pa
>        The event-of my going to the store is-the-repetition numbered-1
>                [of some stream of my goings to the store]
>
>is really what is meant.

That can be said of every other tense as well:

        le nu mi klama le zarci cu rapli li pa
        My going to the store occurs only once.

is really what is meant by example (2). The point of having tenses is
to be able to say in the main bridi the main relationship that we
want to express.

>So while the parallel between "roi" and "re'u" is tempting, I believe
>that it is not necessary to have "re'u", nor does it fit well into the
>ROI selma'o.

I believe that it does fit well with the other "tenses", and that
it is necessary and useful. Indeed, it has already been used several
times (not only by me) in general conversation, which is more than what
can be said for many, maybe even most, other cmavo.

Jorge