Re: A question about space tenses

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> > > ``zo'i'' and ``ze'o'' refer to direction towards or away from the
>> > > speaker's location, or whatever the origin is.
>> > >
>> > > ``fa'a'' and ``to'o'' refer to direction towards or away from
>> > > some other point.
>>
>> I think historically that zo'i and ze'o were original.
>
>Lojbo-historically fa'a and to'o are prior (at least I have a cmavo list
>that includes them and not the others), but maybe their meanings were
>changed at some point.

The original tense design ised FAhA only for location, and had a different
set of selma'o (much more restricted) for motion.  zo'i and ze'o date
from the motion selma'o and interpreting them as a FAhA NOT in motion took
John and I making an arbitrary decision.  The cmavo list (which may n
ot
match the refgram but I hope so) has

fa'a  in the same direction as some point
to'o  in the opposite direction from some point
zo'i  nearer to some point than X
ze'o  farther from some point than X

fa'a and zo'i are thus related and to'o and
 ze'o are related.
What is unclear is whether "some point" or "X" is the reference. But both
pairs imply some other point besid
es the reference when used not as
motion tenses.

>1a)     le nixli to'o bajra
>1b)     le nixli cu bajra to'o le tricu
>
>2a)     le nixli ze'o bajra
>2b)     le nixli cu bajra ze'o le tricu
>
>It would seem that 1-a and 2-a mean the same thing, and the difference
>between 1b and 2b would be that in 2b there is the additional information
>that the running is also away from the speaker.

No, 1-a and 2-a are vague.  1-b and 2-b differ in that 1b places the
running directly opposite the tree from the point of view of the reference
(e.g if the tree is to the north, the running is to the south).

(This is NOT what they mean if motion is indicated, of course).

I think that you are being seriously misled by using bajra as the predicate.
FAhA without mo'i DOES NOT imply motion, only location.  Use "sanli"
in the above, and you will get more meaningful results according to the
stanrdard definitions.  With bajra you risk getting the location of the
running (generally the less interesting information) confused with the
direction of motion (which is relevant of course only if there IS motion
which is the case with bajra unless the x1 is running in place).

>        le nixli cu bajra ne'ifa'a le xamsi
>        The girl runs inside-towards the sea
>        (i.e. towards the inside of the sea, into the sea).
>
>That's why the keyword "inwards" for zo'i is confusing. I guess it
>means inwards from an imaginary circle which passes through the position
>of the event and wich has its center at the speaker.


The running is taking place inside of the sea, and is towards the sea from
the (default) speaker, who therefore is presumably NOT in the sea
and is looking into the sea from the shore.  The fa'a gives little addit
ional
information.

Again this will be clearer if you substitute a non-motion predicate.

ne'imo'ifa'a would mean "inside of and moving towards the sea" which
suggests to me that she is, perhaps a few dozen yards offshore, and runn
ing
away from the shore (along the bottom??? - hope she is a water-breather)

If you want "into the sea" from outside, I would use ne'amo'ifa'a
or probably just mo'ifa'a unless I KNEW she was a water-breather.

Oh I left part of the comparison above out - in comparing 1b and 2b
above, 2b merely says that that the event of running (or standing) is
farther from the implied point than the reference point is, but this need
not be in the same direction as the reference point.  Mars is always
ze'o la solri, but only every 2 years or so is it to'o la solri (i.e.
in opposition).  I think planetary motion is a useful example of motion
where one is interested (sometimes) in BOTH location and directi
on of motion
relative to the speaker and some other point.

>Any ideas how to say "running backwards"?

Not using FAhA alone

>"ti'a" means "behind", but "ti'a bajra" is running behind the speaker,
>and "ti'afa'a bajra" would be running towards the back of the speaker.

The first is true; the latter is indeterminate without context since we
have no indication of the other point.

>This is already too long, so I will leave my rant on the uselessness
>of "mo'i" for another day.

Perhaps it doesn't seem so useless once you remember that without it
all events of running may be events of running in
 place, and the non-mo'i
versions of FAhA do not change that.

(Standard disclaimer - all of the above my unofficial position and shall not
be taken as prescriptive.  If the refgrammar says something, it holds.
If the refgrammar does not, then usage will decide.  The above indicates
what I intended and what I think John and I agreed to, and I hope he did n
ot
contradict it in the refgram).

lojbab