Mixing tenses

[mudri]

This is something I've wanted to ask for a while. I can't find a good way to compare two non-LE-based sumti that are specifically from different tenses.

I can say “x is more than y used to be” by saying {lo ca broda cu zmadu lo pu brode}. But if the sumti are {ko'a} and {ko'e}, I have to resort to {lo ca me ko'a cu zmadu lo pu me ko'e}, which seems less than optimal.

Is that the way it's done? Or is there something on the bridi level?

[Pierre Abbat]

Could you post an example with specific x and y? It may be easier to suggest
something.

Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

[Ian Johnson]

One way would be {lo ni ko'a [ca] broda cu zmadu lo ni ko'e pu brode}. I should comment however that as a rule I don't advocate "complete" ni, since they're sort of not type safe (you can get nonsense like {lo ni mi clani cu zmadu lo ni do xendo}).

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[mudri]

Say, {mi} and {do}, respectively.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, April 29, 2013 13:46:01 mudri wrote:
> Say, {mi} and {do}, respectively.

That needs lo te zmadu to be specified to make sense.

Pierre
--
lo ponse be lo mruli ku po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko

[mudri]

Thanks. Would you recommend that over the {me} version?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM, mudri <jammya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Say, {mi} and {do}, respectively.

You could say "mi pe ca cu zmadu do pe pu ku lo ka ..."

mu'o mi'e xorxes 

[Ian Johnson]

While this parses, it's...philosophically subtle at best. I think of {mi} and {do} as being temporally nonlocal, which means you can't restrict their referent by specifying a time, since they "exist in many times in the first place. I think if you want to specify a time it should be the time of an event, which is why I suggested the version that I did above. Similar issues ensue with the {me} version.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com> wrote:

While this parses, it's...philosophically subtle at best. I think of {mi} and {do} as being temporally nonlocal, which means you can't restrict their referent by specifying a time, since they "exist in many times in the first place. I think if you want to specify a time it should be the time of an event, which is why I suggested the version that I did above. Similar issues ensue with the {me} version.

As you say, that's more a philosophical issue than a linguistic one. Presumably you would have the same type of objections to English expresions like "my old self", "the new me",  "you as a teenager", and so on.

[Ian Johnson]

True, but this "as" issue is a broader one, as has already been noted on the mriste at least once. If it is to have a solution (which it doesn't), it should be a general solution, not ad hoc solutions that work in this context but not that one. Alternately we could have a different way entirely to look at it, which I think is the more natural approach, but that's another discussion. To make my point that this is ad hoc, can you translate "It is bad to eat rice as one's primary source of nutrition" with {pe}? I also think that solutions like {mi pe pu ku} are strongly informed by European languages. Are there examples of non-European languages with similar constructs?

[la gleki]

{lo pu me mi ku}, no? Again the same issue?

[Adam Lopresto]

mi ce'e ca zmadu do ce'e pu ku lo ka co'e

[Michael Turniansky]

  I can't even figure out why this parses.  "mi pe ca" seems to be missing a sumti. (And, okay, I see, by looking at the formal grammar, that GOI are followed by a term, and "term" includes tag(+KU), which includes "ca", but I guess my question is "why can GOI be followed by any term, and not solely by a sumti? What does it even mean, exactly? Exactly for the type of example you have here? "lo gerku ne ri'u cu blabi" ("The dog, which is on the right, is white"?) Although that makes things like like "la maik goi fa'a cu damva'u" parseable but unfathomable (I mean, okay, there at least an aleph-null amount of utterances that are parseable as well as unfathomable, but this just seems to be fundamentally weird, although it does allow tags on non-brivla-based sumti (KOhA, ZO+valsi, LA+cmevla, etc), which wouldn't otherwise be possible, which I guess directly relates to the original question.

   Gee, I've come around 180 degrees from my first impression.  I guess it IS a pretty good thing.  Wish it had been mentioned in the CLL, though, which I don't see.

                 --gejyspa

[selpa'i]

On 29.05.2013 14:32, Michael Turniansky wrote:
>   I can't even figure out why this parses.  "mi pe ca" seems to be
> missing a sumti. (And, okay, I see, by looking at the formal grammar,
> that GOI are followed by a term, and "term" includes tag(+KU), which
> includes "ca", but I guess my question is "why can GOI be followed by
> any term, and not solely by a sumti? What does it even mean, exactly?
> Exactly for the type of example you have here? "lo gerku ne ri'u cu
> blabi" ("The dog, which is on the right, is white"?) Although that
> makes things like like "la maik goi fa'a cu damva'u" parseable but
> unfathomable (I mean, okay, there at least an aleph-null amount of
> utterances that are parseable as well as unfathomable, but this just
> seems to be fundamentally weird, although it does allow tags on
> non-brivla-based sumti (KOhA, ZO+valsi, LA+cmevla, etc), which

> wouldn't otherwise be possible.

Exactly.

I interpret {pe BAI SUMTI} as {poi BAI SUMTI cu co'e}, or more
generally:
{pe TERM} as {poi TERM co'e}.

> Gee, I've come around 180 degrees from my first impression.  I
> guess it IS a pretty good thing.  Wish it had been mentioned in the
> CLL, though, which I don't see.

Could you add this to the CLL-errata section on the tiki, please?
(unless it *is* mentioned in the CLL, it really should be, but a quick
search didn't turn up anything)

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[.iuROK.]

I think, {lo ca broda cu zmadu lo pu brode} does not say what you want to say.

The point of sumti is that they represent some referents. For simplicity, I will use sumti that have exactly one referent each. Usually a sumti reveals some information about its referent, so, using that information, the listener can correctly guess the referent of each sumti. For example, {lo blabi ku} says that the referent is white. That information, however, does not have a direct relation to the truth value of the main bridi, which the sumti is a part of. It does not matter how we refer, only what we refer to.

Let's consider an example: {lo pu verba ku ca ciska dei}. In {pu verba}, {pu} is a part of the selbri. {lo pu verba ku} says that the referent was a child. It does not say anything about the state the referent is at the time of the main bridi, which is now. Maybe he is still a child, maybe not. So, {lo pu verba ku ca ciska dei} does not say that a child writes the sentence. Actually, I wrote the sentence, so the writer is an adult; but some time ago he was a child, for sure.

Back to your example, I would interpret it as "something that is/does broda exceeds something that was/did brode". If you put a time tense into the main bridi, I will take it as if comparison of both objects happen at that time, regardless of tenses of inner selbri.

{do pe pu} will not work either, if you talk to one person. If base sumti has exactly one referent, no relative clause can change that referent; and in the aspect of zmadu3, {do pe pu} will be exactly the same as {do}... Or I may be terribly wrong in this regard, and {pe pu} magically sends your listener to the past. :D

I think, what we need is a reference not to the object itself, but to a state of that object at a certain point in time. A natural tool for that task is abstraction. So, {lo ni ko'a ca brodi cu zmadu lo ni ko'e pu brodi} does work. But

{lo ni ko'a [ca] broda cu zmadu lo ni ko'e pu brode}

does not, unless {broda} and {brode} are the same. Maybe it's a typo. And by the way, to make the intended sense, not only "types" should match, but scales. For a more explicit version:
{lo ni ko'a ca brodi kei be zu'i goi ko'i cu zmadu lo ni ko'e pu brodi kei be ko'i lo ka ce'u barda}
Since zmadu1 and zmadu2 are numbers in this case, zmadu3 should be "is big". The original property that we compare {ka ce'u brodi} goes inside {ni ... kei}, and {ko'i} is some typical scale to measure brodi-ness.

[.iuROK.]

It does not matter how we refer, only what we refer to

.u'i
I just realized how funny the word {binxo} appears in the light of my explanation. Consider the example:
lo verba ku binxo lo makcu ku
Here I'm again talking about myself, so, to give the listener a better idea of which child and which adult I am talking about, I'll just replace both sumti with {mi} which has exactly the same referent.
mi binxo mi
ki'ai .uut.

[Ian Johnson]

This is why I consider binxo2 to always be a ka.

[mudri]

I was under the impression that {lo vi broda} refers to the nearby broda, and hence {lo pu broda} refers to the past broda in the same way. Otherwise, {lo vi broda} would refer to something that is a broda on the condition that it is close, and could morph into something else if it happens to be somewhere else. I don't think that's the desired meaning.

[.iuROK.]

I was under the impression that {lo vi broda} refers to the nearby broda

Nearby to what, it is important. Tenses within sumti are interpreted relative to the bridi. (CLL 10.13.) So, {lo vi broda} probably refers to something that is nearby to the place where the bridi happens at the time of the bridi happens. Few examples.

lo remna vu pensi lo vu dinju
Far away, a man thinks about a remote building.

The building is far away from the place of thinking, but may be the building which the speaker is in.

lo remna pu viska lo ca bajra
A man saw a runner.

The runner was running at the time it was seen by the man, but now may be resting.

and hence {lo pu broda} refers to the past broda

That would be undesirable in many cases. Most often we deal with present things. We cannot, for example, touch things from the past.

mi ca tavla lo pu bajra
I now talk to the one who was running.

It does not mean that I send my phrases into the past, so the runner in the past can hear me. The sentence does not say that there is a connection between the event of talking and the event of running. I just give a hint that the one I am now talking to was running. Suppose I know that the reader of my sentence saw that man running yesterday, so that would be a good hint.

Otherwise, {lo vi broda} would refer to something that is a broda on the condition that it is close, and could morph into something else if it happens to be somewhere else.

{lo vi broda} says that the referent, call it x, "fits" the first place of the selbri {vi broda}, i.e. {xy vi broda} is true. Let's use an example.

mi catlu lo vi mlatu
I look at a nearby cat.

{lo vi mlatu} says that the referent (x) is a cat that is near to the looker, the reference point of the bridi. Another cat (y) that is far away from me cannot be the referent of {lo vi mlatu}, because {.y bu vi mlatu} is false. The idea is not that x can morph into y, but that from x and y it selects x based on their location.

[Ian Johnson]

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:37 AM, .iuROK. <yurock...@gmail.com> wrote:

{lo vi broda} says that the referent, call it x, "fits" the first place of the selbri {vi broda}, i.e. {xy vi broda} is true. Let's use an example.

mi catlu lo vi mlatu
I look at a nearby cat.

{lo vi mlatu} says that the referent (x) is a cat that is near to the looker, the reference point of the bridi. Another cat (y) that is far away from me cannot be the referent of {lo vi mlatu}, because {.y bu vi mlatu} is false. The idea is not that x can morph into y, but that from x and y it selects x based on their location.

Implicit temporal tense makes this situation a bit delicate if you are not explicit: {mi catlu lo vi mlatu} could be {mi catlu lo pu vi mlatu} for example (maybe the cat was next to me, and is now across the street).

Everything else you've said is correct, and if you pretend "is" is untensed instead of present tense, what you said is correct anyway. (This is a constant bother when discussing Lojban in English, Romance languages, etc.)

[.iuROK.]

This is why I consider binxo2 to always be a ka.

Yeah, something like
lo nu xy xi pa co'a ckaji xy xi re ku fasnu gi'e se tcini xy xi ci
would be more useful.

In the meantime, it may be fun to find uses for {binxo} in its current definition. I believe, when I die, I will be separated into 2 entities: the soul and the dead body. The former will consider itself a continuation of me; the latter will not be considering anything. If I assume

lo pruxi po'e mi na du mi

then I can say

mi ba binxo lo pruxi lo nu mrobi'o

[.iuROK.]

The discussion was about how to express concepts with "as", such as "I like you as a friend" and "I respect you as a leader." Others expressed that this is "I like You-As-Friend", that is, the "as" lives in the sumti, similar to how it does in English. Some suggested a NOI for this; others suggested a brivla with place structure something like "x1 is x2 as considered in capacity x3 (ka)". All considered this to live at sumti level.

The easiest I can think of is:

mi pendo nelci do

Clear enough, I think. And this is a generic pattern to translate "x1 broda (x2, considered as brode)":

x2 brode se broda x1

Now let's try to expand the tanru. One can like in different ways. That is, he can have different kinds of positive feelings or attitudes that would qualify for the generic term "x1 likes x2". The corresponding term in Lojban is {nelci}. We need a way to specify which of these kinds of feelings or attitudes x1 has for x2. Or, in other words, in which way x1 likes x2. So, I interpret "I like you as a friend" as "I like you in a way typical for friends". Now to Lojban.

mi nelci do tai lo'e nu zu'i nelci lo pendo be ri

By the way, I don't like the "x considered as y" construction in natlangs. I think, it obscures the meaning in many cases. So, my opinion is that implementing it in Lojban would be an awful move. :)

Now to respect. Again, we have a generic term {sinma}, and we need to specify, respect of which kind is it. I think, differences become apparent in different situations. For example, I may feel respect to a jbocre when he talks in or about Lojban; in other words, in a "Lojbanic situation". So, "I respect you as a leader" would be:

mi sinma do fau lo'e nu do gidva

[.iuROK.]

That information, however, does not have a direct relation to the truth value of the main bridi, which the sumti is a part of. It does not matter how we refer, only what we refer to.

I want to stress that I was talking specifically about the truth value of the main bridi. In other aspects, specific form of sumti may be important. One example: {lo broda ku brode} implies {lo brode ku broda}. That may be important if the listener does not know the referent. At least he now knows that {da broda gi'e brode}. If the bridi was {zo'e brode} (which has the same truth value), the listener would gather less information from it: {da brode}. On the other hand, if the listener already knows the referent and that it is/does broda, {zo'e brode} gives him exactly the same information as {lo broda ku brode}.

[Ian Johnson]

tanru are frequently adequate, but I think we pretty much all agree that they aren't a "solution", they're a way of getting things across when it's obvious what you mean. As the "respect as a leader" example shows, there are often several obvious things that you might mean by a tanru.

That {tai lo'e nu} construct is interesting, but it seems to be more like a selbri relative clause (which is what I proposed on IRC) than a tag construct. ({tai} in general is like this, which is why I've never particularly liked it.)

[.iuROK.]

tanru are frequently adequate, but I think we pretty much all agree that they aren't a "solution", they're a way of getting things across when it's obvious what you mean.

But the semantics of tanru fits the task very well. Seltau selects a subclass in a broad class of relations that can be expressed by tertau. And that is just what we need. The only drawback is that it is undefined, which subclass is selected. :D

 

As the "respect as a leader" example shows, there are often several obvious things that you might mean by a tanru.

ko'e gidva se sinma ko'a

What one would think it can mean, besides the intended meaning? In a typical situation the listener already knows that {ko'e gidva}.

 

That {tai lo'e nu} construct is interesting, but it seems to be more like a selbri relative clause (which is what I proposed on IRC) than a tag construct. ({tai} in general is like this, which is why I've never particularly liked it.)

{tai} is just a shorthand. We can expand it further:

lo nu mi nelci do ku fasnu gi'e simsa lo'e nu zu'i nelci lo pendo be ri kei lo ka tarmi ce'u

[.iuROK.]

Another approach to the original problem of this topic. With time, ko'a and ko'e may vary in the property that we are interested in, that's why we refer to the past state of ko'e. Let's think of an imaginary "proxy". Let it be exactly equal to ko'e in our property of interest at a certain moment in the past. Let it not vary in that property in time. Now we can compare ko'a with the proxy.

ko'a ca zmadu lo stodi be vo'i je dunli be ko'e bei vo'i bei pu
ko'a currently exceeds something that was equal to ko'e and didn't change since then

[la arxokuna]

How does {tai} expands to brivla form?

Is it {po'oi + tamsmi} or {no'oi +tamsmi} or what? If it has {fi'o} then please define it formally.

[selpa'i]

On 31.05.2013 08:04, la arxokuna wrote:
> How does {tai} expands to brivla form?
> Is it {po'oi + tamsmi} or {no'oi +tamsmi} or what? If it has {fi'o}
> then please define it formally.

broda tai ko'a -> lo nu broda cu se tamsmi ko'a

[Pierre Abbat]

pu'u lo jungo cu binxo lo jungo
(Not-quite-right translation of a chapter title in Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Better would be "pu'u la .jugygug. binxo lo jungo" or "pu'u la .jugygug. co'a
jungo".)

Pierre
--
sei do'anai mi'a djuno puze'e noroi nalselganse srera