[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la xorxes cusku di'u
> That too, but I meant to give a different example, sorry.
> Why is {ze'u co'a broda} "a long start of broda" allowed, but
> not {co'a ze'u broda} "start of a long broda"?
>
> {co'a ze'u broda} will be accepted by the parser, but it will
> parse as {co'aku ze'u broda}.
>
Interestingly, jbofihe just rejects it, though the official parser
(called genturfahi on my machine, though that might just be my name for
it) inserts the ku. So that's either a jbofihe bug, or a grammar change
- if you're using a parser built from the source on www.lojban.org, then
it's using an old grammar. I've mentioned this to Robin, but I guess
he's been too busy - it looks like a major job, actually, since
apparently the output of yacc needs hacking to work with the parser
code.
> But there is a contradiction there. You want {ba ba'o broda}
> to locate the aftermath of broda in the future (which I agree
> with) but {ba ba'o ko'a broda} will not take you to some future
> interval where you locate the aftermath of ko'a. How do you
> consiliate {ba ko'a broda} and {ba'o ko'a broda} with
> {ba ba'o ko'a broda}, compared to {ba broda}, {ba'o broda}
> and {ba ba'o broda}?
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I have, in brief,
{ba broda} - broda in some future-centered interval
{ba ko'a broda} - broda in some future-from-ko'a-centered interval
{ba'o broda} - some interval is contained in the aftermath of le nu
broda (with one specific event being referred to, I think)
{ba'o ko'a broda} - broda in some interval contained in the aftermath of ko'a
{ba ba'o broda} - some future-centered interval is contained in the
aftermath of le nu broda
{ba ba'o ko'a broda} - broda in some future-from-ko'a-centered
interval which is contained in the aftermath of ko'a
>
> > If you want to use ZAhO in a different way (as in your translation of
> > {co'a na'o broda}), then that's cool - as long as it's part of a general
> > scheme which gives meaning to this class of tenses ({ZAhO TAhE}, or
> > preferably {ZAhO (tense as above)}). That's all I'm saying, and that's
> > what I don't see happening, and is what I was clumsily attempting with my
> > JOI1 thingy.
>
> The general scheme is this: each tag unit acts on (has scope over)
> everything that follows. This includes the imaginary journey for
> PUs: {pu pu broda} means that {le nu le nu broda cu purci cu purci}.
> {pu ba broda} means that {le nu le nu broda cu balvi cu purci}.
> {pu co'a broda} means that {le nu le nu broda cu cfari cu purci},
> and {co'a pu broda} _should_ mean that {le nu le nu broda cu purci
> cu cfari}. Every tag unit corresponds to a binary relationship, that
> relationship is all we need to interpret them and their combinations.
OK then! That's more like it! With seltcita sumti providing explicit
x2's to these binary relationships, then? And giving the x2's default
values, rather than assuming ellipsis of tenses? That's a real nice
system, actually.
Would you mind explicitly explaining all this on the wiki page, unless
it already is elsewhere? You may think it's all obvious, and seeing it
now of course it is, but it differs (in spirit if not in implication)
enough from CLL to need explaining. At least to those as dumb as me.
I'm not sure about your (previously incomprehensible) note on the wiki
page about {ze'u pu}, though. Presumably we'd have, where brodrze'u
means something like "x1 (event) has long duration x2 (default some
interval, or subset thereof, containing the 'now')",
{ze'u pu broda} => {le nu le nu broda cu purci cu brodrze'u}
which surely isn't what we want at all? The event of broda being in the
(aorist) past for a long time around now? That doesn't even contain the
idea of le nu broda lasting for a long time, never mind the extra info
given by pu.
And I can't see any predicates corresponding to the ZA cmavo which would
work - what ones have you come up with?
> > I
> > don't see how you can reasonably make a special case out of ZAhO, with
> > it having a different meaning when part of an explicitly expressed tense
> > like the above. Whatever CLL says.
>
> I don't want ZAhO to be a special case. CLL makes it a special case.
I think I meant ZEhA. But don't worry, it all makes sense now.
Martin