[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] ta'e/na'o

In a message dated 10/26/2002 9:00:39 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes:

<<
, {ta'e} or
{na'o} would talk about coverage of the interval, assuming they
are, like {ru'i} and {di'i}, purely a matter of distribution of
the occurrences in a given interval. Relative {roi}'s like
{so'a} and {so'e} are similar to this, but they focus more on
the number of times than on the distribution of those times.

Let's say we give that meaning then to {ta'e}. That leaves
{na'o}. Is it just that one covers more of the interval than
the other? But which one? And do we really need to make such
a fine distinction?

>>
As far as I can make out from the brief summaries in the American Heritage Dictionary (and so 1) prescriptive, 2) (Northeastern) American usage, 3) 20 some years old), the main distinctions among "regularly, typically, usually, normally, habitually, customarily" and maybe a few more, is the source of the pattern to which they distribution of occurrences conform. This, in turn seems to connect with the subject and so to be irrelevant to Lojban, if we believe the guff about all places being the same.  Except perhaps that there seems to be a separation also between observed regularities  -- without comment about source -- and prescribed regularities, whether from custom, habit, innate features and so on (calling the latter "prescribed" may be stretching it a bit). I would think that, if there is a useful distinction here at all. {ta'e} is for the prescribed regularities, culture- or personality-based regularties being said to be adhered to more or less, while {na'o} seems related to the observed one.  But note that this spec of {ta'e} still tends to single out one place as special, the part of the relation on which the pattern is imposed (or exposed).  John may habitually kick cats, but cats aren't habitually kicked by John.  I think, then, that this source factor has no place in the tense notions, however important it may (occasionally) be elsewhere.  In short, I think that {ta'e}, for all that it is the prototype, doesn't belong. Tensewise, all we can say about repeated events is that the repetition is high density or low in a period, including how often it occurs, and, when it is not continuous (or it  it continual?) whether the occurences fit some pattern we notice or not: {no'a} and whatever else is legal here (not {no'a nai}, alas, but maybe {na'e no'e}).
And, with reference to cases othere than strict counts, it is important, I think to notice the differences between different arrangements of conditions with respect connectives and quantifers: "Always when there is a cat available, John  kicks it" seems rather different from "When there is a cat available, John always kicks it" and bi\oth from "John always kicks cats" (which is, I think ambiguous between the two).