On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:36 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@hidden.email> wrote:
>
> Didn't want to make a new thread for this, and this is about time stuff.
>
> First of all, what is the shortest way to get the equivalent of "ca lo
> nu broda cu brode"? It seems all my solutions end up having cbn- all the
> way to the right, which is a monstrous forethought. I assume there is a
> more human-readable form than this:
>
> la fa smo'e le fe smo'e cbnake
>
> If the formulae before cbnake are very long, this becomes very hard to
> track in real-time, not to mention it's not very stylish in literature.
I think usually it would be: "la fa smo'e fa smo'e", since it's not so
much simultaneity as happening together that is important.
The first problem is that this construction will not work for prc and blv.
The second problem pertains to the semantics of "fV". In things like "la (fa)R(ka) (fa)P(ka)", it's questionable whether the event/SoA "a" restricted by R is really the same event in which everything concurrent in the same world occurs. If I am typing an email for Engelang and at the exact same moment someone is peeling potatoes in Moscow, or a frozen comet is hurling past Pluto, it's not clear that these things are part of the same event. If "a" can extend across space in such a manner, then what's stopping it from extending across time as well?
In fact, I think that in "la (fa)R(ka) ...", "a"
is best interpreted as the smallest possible SoA that encompasses
everything relevant to just those things explicitly tagged by "fa" or referenced by "(k)a" inside R. In other words, SoA-restrictions are interpreted as parsimoniously as
possible. In a previous email I had asked, "Generally, given "fu
fo fi fe fa
F", what is the precise semantic difference between A and U? Does
anyone see any?" If I might answer my own
question, I think that outer fV is exactly the same minimal SoA as the inner one (at least in the same restriction, e.g. "lakekikoku fu
fo fi fe fa
R ...").
As far as options, we do have "ju" for concurrency, but I think that that is too strong:
Sometimes we want to say just that things happened at the same time, not
that they are as closely connected as "ju" entails or at least
implies. And of course "ju" will not cover "before" and "after". Therefore if we want shortcuts for prc/cbn/blv, I think we need at least three new j- (or h-) operators.
ji'a F1 F2
=> la fa F1 le fe F2 cbneka
"The event(A) in which F1 is such that the event(E) in which F2 is such that E is concurrent with A."
"During F1, F2."
ji'i F1 F2
=> la fa F1 le fe F2 prceka
"The event(A) in which F1 is such that the event(E) in which F2 is such that E is earlier than A."
"Before F1, F2."
ji'u F1 F2
=> la fa F1 le fe F2 blveka
"The event(A) in which F1 is such that the event(E) in which F2 is such that E is later than A."
"After F1, F2."
...where "a" and "e" are anonymous & unique of course. This works best under the "parsimonious event restriction rule". Cf. hika, hiki, hiku:
(P)F2 = hiki F2:
= in the past / earlier / it was the case that F2
= la dscrsfsna se fe F2 prceka
= na hika'i na F2
(F)F2 = hiku F2:
= in the future / later / it will be the case that F2
= la dscrsfsna se fe F2 blveka
= na hika'u na F2
(N)F2 = hika F2:
= currently / now / it is now the case that F2"
= la dscrsfsna le fe F2 cbneka