[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> > At first, I liked also the idea of tense as meta-comment, though maybe
more
> > on a semantic level: the idea, which I have already tried in another
> > context, is that using a tense is equivalent to make two different
claims,
> > and therefore could be acted upon grammatically and semantically
> > independently (for instance by negation).
> >>
> What two claims? That of the tenseless bridi (that it is true in some
world
> or other -- almost trivial except for contradictions) and that it is true
in
> particular in some world past to this one (or future or identical)? But
> then, the whole reduces to the second question.
Not really: the tenseless bridi could easily be false in all possible tense
related worlds. For instance {mi pu klama la paris} could semantically
be seen as:
AND ({mi klama la paris}, {The time location of last bridi is {pu}).
Then a possible idea is to be grammatically (and elegantly) able to negate
the whole (1), the first argument only (2) or the second argument only (3).
(1) is {na}.
(2) is most of the time also {na}, as the nuance could be seen maybe as
special case of emphasis. Note that the implicit, that is contextual,
semantic could be nonetheless quite rich here: most elements of the first
bridi may be supposed correct but a handle to be guessed.
(3) could have been {punai}, and is useful, as you claim the first bridi and
negate a specific position on the time axis.
> So, what is current usage (if any): to deny (ko'a pu broda} do we
> use {ko'a pu naku broda} or {koa puroroi /roroi pu naku broda} (both
parse,
> but the break suggests that I want the first "throughout the whole past
ko'a
> does not broda"
Yes, I want that one too. (but note that this is over specified compared to
my (2) case, as you explicitly state what is negated in bridi).
>rather than "it is always the case that ko'a brodaed in the
> past," which requires infinite past time at least)?
Sorry, I'm lost. Did you mean 'not brodaed'?
>Surely, we need both and
> it is too bad (but correctable given that no syntax change is involved?)
that
> {PUnai} can't be used for the former and {na pu} for the latter (the
parser
> actually gives {pu na} the grouping wanted for {pu naku} above and {punai}
a
> different one and {pu naku} and even more different one -- Lord, I wish
these
> parses were reliable for structure as well as the simple yes/no
grammatical
> question -- which amounts to the hopeless wish that the grammar's
categories
> all made some sense, rather than just being convenient.)
The correction is not possible at least in the Naturalistic sense as the
CLL, as noted earlier, explicitly defines the semantic of {punai}
equivalent as the one of {pu na}.
> And:
> > I would hate to be someone who can't appreciate clean elegance, but
> > I think that a tense cmavo C as a sumti (tcita) or selbri tcita within
> > bridi B is equivalent to C(B): i.e. the tense is a predicate and the
> > bridi is its argument.
>
> This interpretation seems right to me for lojban, IMO following the CLL
> prescription (BTW, this is the explicit solution AFAIK used in gua!spi,
> which may indicate that the tense cmavo were indeed seen as true
> predicate in early Loglan or lojban).
> >>
> Well, I think it is probably dead wrong for Lojban, because I think Lojban
> would come down for the {pu roroi naku} solution (i.e., that {pu} = {pu
> su'oroi}) and I am reasonably sure that it was thus in Loglan and ever
since
> (I remember looking in Loglan for convenient expressions for the duals of
> {pu} and {ba} ).
Ok, I trust you. I am far too newbie to argue on Loglan or Lojban
history :-)
-- Lionel