Re: [lojban] modals inside description sumti (za'e "internal-modals") question

[selpa'i]

Am 17.08.2012 23:21, schrieb sunderland:
> Forgive me if this question is super obvious or misguided:

Any question is worth being asked.

> FAhA as a tense goes into {lo} as part of the selbri (I think): {lo
> zu'a zarci}, "store to the left". But what about FAhA as a modal,
> i.e., "store to the left of the school"?

Any TAG (TAG is the pseudo-selma'o for all sumtcita, like tenses and BAI
and FAhA) can be between the lo and the sumti.
You can use FAhA as modal tags too:

lo zarci be zu'a lo ckule
"the store to the left of the school"

> - You could use a relative clause with the full gismu (but not all
> FAhA get a gismu).
> {lo zarci poi zunle lo ckule}

All FAhA (and all other sumtcita) can be expressed using fi'o + some selbri.
{lo zarci poi zunle lo ckule} is fine.

> - You could do a couple of awful conversions (can {jai} can even take
> FAhA instead of BAI?).
> {lo sejaizu'ase zarci be lo ckule}

jai works on any TAG. But I agree that that's an awful construct.
I don't think that's a good idea.

> ==> Is there a straightforward way to put a modal phrase into a
> description sumti? (How do you do za'e "internal-modals"?)

There is:
lo pe TAG SUMTI SELBRI
lo pe bai ko'a broda (<-- in a more lojbanic form)

>
> Somewhat relatedly, I was also wondering, are the following grammatical?
> 1. {zu'a lo ckule [ku] cu zarci}

Yes, that's grammatical.

> 2. {lo mu'i tavla}

That too, but only as long as the modal is empty. Otherwise use the
construct I showed above.

> In other words, can {cu} separate the selbri from a modal phrase
> (something other than leading sumti)? 1. is technically an observative
> (I think) after all. Secondly, is BAI considered part of the selbri
> when it's used like a tense?

As long as there is a term before the cu, it's fine. A term is any of
the following:
{SUMTI, TAG SUMTI, TAG ku, NA ku}. So yes, you can do that.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

[Jacob Errington]

coi

For starters, these are advanced topics (ish) which makes me suspect you're getting a very good grasp of the grammar. Congratulations :) Come talk with us in IRC sometime !

On 17 August 2012 17:21, sunderland <gatew...@gmail.com> wrote:

Forgive me if this question is super obvious or misguided:

FAhA as a tense goes into {lo} as part of the selbri (I think): {lo zu'a zarci}, "store to the left". But what about FAhA as a modal, i.e., "store to the left of the school"?

FAhA aren't required to appear in descriptions. They can appear before any selbri.

Additionally, FAhA are members of the meta-selma'o called TAG, which gives them the following properties:

{fa'a broda} == {fa'a ku broda} == {broda fa'a ku} == {broda fa'a zo'e}

{ko'a jai fa'a broda} == {broda fa'a ko'a}

There are some other properties, but they aren't important.

e.g. {mi zu'a tavla} -> "I'm talking to the left of [something]" where [something] represents that annoying gloss of {zo'e}.

- You could use a relative clause with the full gismu (but not all FAhA get a gismu).

{lo zarci poi zunle lo ckule}

You're right, there are many FAhA that have gismu, but you'll notice that they're "reversed":

zu'a ~= fi'o *se* zunle

This also holds for PU:

pu ~= fi'o *se* purci

 

- You could do a couple of awful conversions (can {jai} can even take FAhA instead of BAI?).

{lo sejaizu'ase zarci be lo ckule}

{jai} can take any TAG, and there were even ideas about FA becoming TAG, making stuff like {jai fi} grammatical, albeit unuseful :P

 

==> Is there a straightforward way to put a modal phrase into a description sumti? (How do you do za'e "internal-modals"?)

The answer is yes. It's called TAG for a reason, and that's because you can use TAG to "tag" a sumti, making it fill in the "value" of the TAG.

e.g. {mi citka zu'a lo ckule}, {mi citka ba lo nu tadni}, {mi citka ga'a do}

You could almost think of these TAGs as FA, because they precede the sumti. However, tagged sumti are invisible to the regular place structure of the selbri.

i.e. {.i mi mu'i lo nu djica cu citka lo plise} == {.i mi citka mu'i lo nu djica kei lo plise} == {.i mi citka lo plise mu'i lo nu djica}

It's "better" style to put big event tags at the end of the sentence to elide terminators.

 

Somewhat relatedly, I was also wondering, are the following grammatical?

1.  {zu'a lo ckule [ku] cu zarci} 

2.  {lo mu'i tavla}

In other words, can {cu} separate the selbri from a modal phrase (something other than leading sumti)? 1. is technically an observative (I think) after all. S 

econdly, is BAI considered part of the selbri when it's used like a tense?

You can use {cu} to terminate pretty much anything, as long as a selbri follows.

Hope these explanations helped.

mu'o mi'e la tsani 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/5p3CEsyxT6AJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[sunderland]

ki'e la selpa'i .e la tsani

Wow, that all answers my question exactly.

> There is: 
> lo pe TAG SUMTI SELBRI 
> lo pe bai ko'a broda  (<-- in a more lojbanic form) 

So are the following equivalent?

- lo broda be bai ko'a

- lo pe bai ko'a broda

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday 17 August 2012 17:21:21 sunderland wrote:
> Forgive me if this question is super obvious or misguided:
>
> FAhA as a tense goes into {lo} as part of the selbri (I think): {lo zu'a
> zarci}, "store to the left". But what about FAhA as a modal, i.e., "store
> to the left of the school"?

Selpa'i's answer, "lo zarci be zu'a lo ckule", is good; it's what I'd say.

This term "modal" is at odds with its meaning in linguistics, which is words
like "ka'e" and "nu'o". There are two kinds of prepositions in Lojban: those
that are derived from brivla, are inherently prepositions, and can be
converted with SE; and tense markers used as prepositions. The former are
what the Book calls "modals". "zu'a" is a spatial tense marker. The
dictionary may define it using "fi'o", but it's not an exact equivalent.

> In other words, can {cu} separate the selbri from a modal phrase (something
> other than leading sumti)? 1. is technically an observative (I think) after

> all. Secondly, is BAI considered part of the selbri when it's used like a
> tense?

You can't use BAI as a tense. It's a proper preposition; if you put it just
before the selbri, it adds a place to the predicate and leaves it unfilled.

A string of tense markers just before a selbri is grammatical:
pu be'a sanli
But a string of prepositions including BAI is not:
*ca gau farvi
*gau ca farvi
ca farvi gau
gau ku ca farvi
*bai ta'i zbasu
bai zbasu ta'i

mu'omi'e .pier.

--
I believe in Yellow when I'm in Sweden and in Black when I'm in Wales.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday 17 August 2012 20:04:24 sunderland wrote:
> So are the following equivalent?
> - lo broda be bai ko'a
> - lo pe bai ko'a broda

I don't think so. I haven't seen the latter construction before, but I think
it's equivalent to "lo broda pe bai ko'a", which is not equivalent to "lo
broda be bai ko'a". Here are some examples of the difference:

mi te cange fo lo fi'orxruki peseba'i lo jipci
I raise guineafowl instead of chickens.
mi te cange fo lo fi'orxruki beseba'i lo jipci
*I raise something which guineafowls instead of chickening.
The latter sentence doesn't make sense, although the Lojban is syntactically
correct.

mi viska lo renro pa'o lo canko
I see a thrower through a window.
mi viska lo renro be pa'o lo canko
I see someone who throws through windows.
mi viska lo renro pe pa'o lo canko
I see a thrower who is caught in a window.
"pa'o" is a tense marker, but the same principle applies.

Usually, if "lo <brivla> be BAI <sumti>" makes sense, "lo <brivla> pe BAI
<sumti>" will mean the same thing, but the converse isn't true.

"goi" and "pe" are in the same selma'o. What does "mi te cange lo fi'orxruki
goi seba'i lo jipci" mean?

Pierre

--
gau do li'i co'e kei do

[selpa'i]

Am 18.08.2012 02:33, schrieb Pierre Abbat:
> You can't use BAI as a tense. It's a proper preposition; if you put it just
> before the selbri, it adds a place to the predicate and leaves it unfilled.
>
> A string of tense markers just before a selbri is grammatical:
> pu be'a sanli
> But a string of prepositions including BAI is not:
> *ca gau farvi
> *gau ca farvi
> ca farvi gau
> gau ku ca farvi
> *bai ta'i zbasu
> bai zbasu ta'i

This rule makes little sense and is an unnecessary restriction that
shouldn't (and in my opinion doesn't) even exist. I don't know why you
always mention "proper prepositions" and distinguish them from tenses.
There is no difference between tenses and BAI, they all add places to
the bridi, they all tag a sumti, they all can be used as selbri tcita,
which is like filling them with zo'e.

Am 17.08.2012 23:21, schrieb sunderland:

> Somewhat relatedly, I was also wondering, are the following grammatical?
> 1. {zu'a lo ckule [ku] cu zarci}
> 2. {lo mu'i tavla}
>

> In other words, can {cu} separate the selbri from a modal phrase
> (something other than leading sumti)? 1. is technically an observative
> (I think) after all.

Observatives aren't really a thing anymore. You shouldn't treat bridi
without an explicit x1 differently from others.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--

pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

[djandus]

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 6:25:21 AM UTC-5, selpa'i wrote:

Am 18.08.2012 02:33, schrieb Pierre Abbat:
> You can't use BAI as a tense. It's a proper preposition; if you put it just
> before the selbri, it adds a place to the predicate and leaves it unfilled.
>
> A string of tense markers just before a selbri is grammatical:
> pu be'a sanli
> But a string of prepositions including BAI is not:
> *ca gau farvi
> *gau ca farvi
> ca farvi gau
> gau ku ca farvi
> *bai ta'i zbasu
> bai zbasu ta'i
This rule makes little sense and is an unnecessary restriction that
shouldn't (and in my opinion doesn't) even exist. I don't know why you
always mention "proper prepositions" and distinguish them from tenses.
There is no difference between tenses and BAI, they all add places to
the bridi, they all tag a sumti, they all can be used as selbri tcita,
which is like filling them with zo'e.

I'm confused by this as well. I could almost understand not wanting to follow a tense with BAI, since {bai broda} expands to {bai zo'e broda} and preceding those with a {pu} is awkward (and I believe causes them to differ in meaning). However, I've always parsed {pu broda} as something that modifies the selbri and produces a nuanced selbri, which should always be able to be preceded by BAI, in my mind. That is:

{gau ca farvi} expands to {gau ku ca farvi} and nothing happened! Yay!

So, in my mind, it makes sense to be able to precede selbri with as many PU as desired, then as many BAI as desired. I'd like to be able to do the other order as well, just so long as nobody tries to split PU up, which is just silly.

mu'o mi'e djos