{za'a}

40 views
Skip to first unread message

Ilmen

unread,
May 14, 2017, 1:28:16 PM5/14/17
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com

coi ro do

Here is the BPFK definition of the evidentiality particle {za'a}:

“Evidential. Used to express direct observation or perception as the source of information or idea. Said perception may be visual, but need not be. See also zgana, lanli, the preface.”

I would like a clarification on the following point:

Does {za'a} imply that the event described by the sentence is witnessed at the very time of utterance, or does it simply means that the information comes from direct personal experience (directly/sensorily witnessed), even if in remote past? Is {za'a pu broda} nonsensical?

I interpret the official definition as not requiring the perception to be concurrent with the utterance of the sentence, but at least some other Lojbanists seem to interpret it the other way. Maybe it is due to differing interpretations of the word "direct" in the definition.

Which interpretation is correct?

Thank you in advance.
—Ilmen.


Jorge Llambías

unread,
May 14, 2017, 5:00:11 PM5/14/17
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Ilmen <ilmen....@gmail.com> wrote:

Does {za'a} imply that the event described by the sentence is witnessed at the very time of utterance, or does it simply means that the information comes from direct personal experience (directly/sensorily witnessed), even if in remote past? Is {za'a pu broda} nonsensical?

I would say the former, in contrast with "ti'e" for second-hand evidence.

I don't see why "za'a" couldn't be combined with "ba'a nai" or even with "ba'a", even if "za'a [ba'a cu'i]" is te most common use.

We probably should not be mixing the time of the event (marked with PU) with the time in which the evidence for the event is obtained (marked with "ba'a [cu'i/nai]"). All combinations are possible, as it is possible to remember (knowing) that something will happen in the future, and to expect (to find out) that something has happened in the past. I suppose that in the case of "za'a", the PU-time and the ba'a-time should match, but not necessarily for other evidentials.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Michael Turniansky

unread,
May 15, 2017, 6:20:00 AM5/15/17
to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com
  Correct. The concept of evidentials was borrowed directly from Láadan, and indirectly from some Native American languages, which require you to transmit information on how you know something to be true. za'a is in that family, and there is no reason for the information you are reporting on has to be occurring while you are reporting on it.
              --gejyspa


--
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-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Nestor Diaz

unread,
Apr 7, 2019, 8:56:57 AM4/7/19
to Lojban Beginners
Hola Jorge, te habia enviado un email hace un par de dias, mi nombre es Nestor, soy colombiano y estoy por Argentina en estos momentos, mas exactamente en Buenos Aires, y quiero conocerte, nunca logre convencer a nadie sobre aprender lojban y nunca tuve oportunidad de practicar con alguien y eres lo mas cercano a eso.

Si quieres nos podemos ver para tomar un café.

Saludos.

Nestor
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages