Re: lo lunra selgusni ninmu

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 12:31:53 PM3/2/99
to
>From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jo...@intermedia.com.ar>
>la lojbab cusku di'e
>>>{ko'a mi puzuku bazuku xanjai}
>>
>>Not knowing what he wanted, this seems to be a compound tense involving an
>>imaginaryjouney a long way into the past and then relative to that, a long
>>way into the future - in short back to the present - maybe soemthing like
>>"a long time ago was eventually going to do/be X"
>
>You and John seem to agree that {puzuku bazuku} is the same as {puzubazuku}.
>I checked the refgram and I can't find this mentioned there.

Start with example 13.5), pg 234, combining with the discussion on page
216, section 1 on the equivalence of tense+ku with selbri tense. The use
of sequential tenses as being vector additive is the essential paradigm of
both the imaginary journey metaphor and the storytime convention.

>The problem with this view is that it doesn't work in general. For example,
>{puco'aku baco'uku} cannot be welded into a single tense.

?pau It cannot grammatically, ?ji it cannot logically be so welded

was starting the event of later ending X?

>I think an
>interpretation that works for all cases is better than one that only works
>for some.

You could use a nonlogical interval connective to get an interval starting
in the past and ending in the future. pubi'iba? (I'm very rusty.)

SwiftRain

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 9:35:10 PM3/4/99
to
"Jorge J. Llamb�as" wrote:
>
> >.i lu "muvdu fa lo lanci" li'u
> >.i lu "na go'i .i muvdu fa lo brife" li'u
> >.i lu "na go'e ja go'i .i muvdu fa lo menli" li'u
>
> i pe'i muvdu fa lo brife i lo lanci ka'e muvdu da de di va'o
> le nu bevri ly da de di i le menli cu muvdu ca le nu le
> se menli cu muvdu

.u'i, that's another perspective. if you don't know, that's a
translation of part of a zen koan: two zen students & a zen master are
looking at a flag... the first student: "it is the flag that moves" --
the second student: "no, it is the breeze that moves" -- the master
replies: "no, you are both wrong. it is the mind that moves."

> i na vajni i do te smuni ma le du'u lo'e temci na ba'e sirji muvdu
> i xu do te smuni fi le du'u lei fasnu cu krefu fi li ci'i i xu cukla
> muvdu

mi na jetnu djuno .i mi na zgana lo tarmi be le temci .i mi jinvi le
du'u le pensi be ro prenu cu na'e banzu le nu skicu le munje temci .i
.ai mi na skicu le munje ja jetnu temci .i .ai mi skicu le se lifre be
mi temci

> i ki'anai i le prami na nelci le nu denpa

.i se'o mi ka'e frili denpa .i se'o mi so'i lo prenu cu prami .i se'o mi
na'e cafne pensi la djes. .iu

ni'o ca le cabdei ku mi mutci pensi lo drata pendo be mi be'o noi se
cmene la djEsikas. .a'uro'u .i .ue .uisai mi caca'o tavla ko'a .i ti'e
le'e citno cu fenki zifre

> i je'u do citno

.i ti'e mi citno .ui

> I find that's one of the interesting things about Lojban, we have
> the opportunity to create the idioms.

.iesai

> BTW, your Lojban is very good!

ki'esai zenba xamgu .ie

> i ma cmene do bau la lojban

so'eroi la bret. .ija la mYngodjel. va'o la .ibu ry. cy.

> co'o mi'e xorxes

co'o mi'e bret.

Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 12:25:32 PM3/4/99
to
>From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jo...@intermedia.com.ar>
>>By the text and examples on pg 216, 13.5) on pg 234 is equivalent to
>>puku mi baku klama le zarci.
>
>Example 13.5) suggests that, I agree.
>
>>Introducing zu or co'a or co'u should not change how this works,
>
>I agree about {zu}, but introducing {co'u} does necessarily change
>how it works, because {puco'uba} is not a permissible Lojban tense.

Well it raises the questioned dealt with below.

>> though the
>>backwardsness of some of the tense/modals when used as sumti tcita might
>>cause them to need to be reversed in some cases.
>
>This is certainly a problem, but I think it doesn't affect this discussion.
>I suppose that {mi ba'oku klama le zarci} is the same as
>{mi ba'o klama le zarci} and not {mi ba'o zo'e klama le zarci}, right?

I hesitate to say, because John and I have answered the question before,
and it might even be in the Book. My interpretation barring John saying
otherwise, however, would be that the ku form presumes the ellipsized
sumti. The paradigm that had us add puku for example was originally that
of ellipsized sumti, and not as a semantics-free transformational grammar
maneuver. It just was convenient and logical to make puku adjacent to the
selbri be equivalent to pu in the selbri. But I think that
transformability need not be so for ba'o.

>>"Noncompoundable" is a grammatical issue arising solely from what John had
>>to do to make the grammar work under YACC and stay simple.
>
>That surely must be wrong. The simplest grammar would have been
>to make all tense cmavo part of the same selmaho and allow any

>and all combinations. That would certainly work under YACC.

The goal of the tense system grammar was not the simplest grammar, but one
which described the tense system. That system went through 3 major
evolutionary stages during development, and all specified the grammar in
considerable detail based on PC's presentation to me and later John of the
logic of tense. The current system is simplified to remove constraints,
but we don't want random strings of tense-related cmavo to be legal - we
want things that we can interpret via grouping rules etc. (Originally PA
also had sub-grammar so that not just any old string of numbers and
semi-numbers could be legal, but we found that too many of the possibility
had usable meanings and chose to stop trying to specify them all, which was
impossible using LALR1 by that point.)

I know that in support of the compounding interpretation, there were some
things that could not be said with a single tenseconstruct because
ungrammatical, which John said would be expressed using two consecutive
tenses. For example,

mi baki ne'iki klama

parses by inserting a ku after the baki but

mi ba ne'iki klama
and
mi ba ne'i klama

parse with both together in a compound selbri tense

Clearly the baki[ku] ne'iki is the same construct, but using the ku to
avoid the grammaticality problem, which means in turn that it should be the
same as
baki [ku] ne'iki [ku] because I can always stick a third ki tense in there.

Now this might override what I said above about the desirable
interpretation of ba'oku, since the grammatical generation of ba'oki ku is
inevitable at some point. Which is why I will defer to John if he decides
one or the other should take precedence. He has dominated the tense
grammar since he came up with the imaginary journey metaphor and wrote the
definitive tense paper - I only invented the grammar concept %^)


>If the complex tense grammar has any reason of being is
>precisely to _prevent_ some combinations from happening.

Indeed that is the intent, but especially to prevent ambiguous groupings.
However the necessities of LALR1 made very complex tenses easier to deal
with as multiple tenses especially with the imaginary jounreys metaphor and
the related storytime convention that preceded it and thereby gave a basis
for interpreting compounds.

Remember that for a long time you could not have both orders
space time
and
time space

The reason was that I had never figured out a way to get YACC to accept
either unambiguously and hence required the illegal one to be stated using
a ku separator (that this was indeed the solution du jour for that problem
is why I am sure that successive ku tenses are treated as sequential
elements in a hyper compound)

It was a late modification that John made that allowed both orders to be
possible without a ku.

>> I think it has
>>been clearly stated on the List, if not explicitly in the Book, that two
>>adjacent "noncompoundable" or "compoundable" for that matter tenses should
>>be treated as if they were compounded.
>
>That doesn't make sense. If they're noncompoundable they can't be treated
>as if they were compounded, by definition.

Grammatically noncompoundable. Semantically, we can do whatever seems
necessary, and "as if compunded" seems like the simplest interpretation
(and I am not sure you have presented an alternative one).

>> I am only unsure whether this was
>>stated for particular kinds of noncompoundables or as a general case.
>
>I don't remember it ever being discussed. Maybe it was before my
>joining the list.

I am sure it was afterwards, since you joined while the imaginary journey
was still young and the reversability of space and time tenses did not yet
exist. That changed, as I recall vaguely, after a discussion you started,
possibly even with a comment on the paper.

>>>>>{puco'aku baco'uku}
>>
>>Take an imaginary journey to the past and we have an initiation of an
>event.
>>That event is the future (relative to the pu offset already stated)
>>conclusion of X.
>
>I'm afraid I can't make sense of that. Let's make it more concrete. Let's
>say I have been painting my house, and painting the door will be the

>conclusion of the larger event of painting the whole house. Then I
>might say:
>
> mi pu co'a co'u cintypu'i le zdani ca le cerni
> I started the conclusion of painting the house this morning.
>
>meaning that I started to paint that last door this morning. What could
>the additional {ba} possibly mean? That the painting of the door was
>in the future of its start? How could it be in the future, since it has to
>start there? Does it mean that a part of it was in the future? And to make
>it more confusing still, what about something like {puco'aku puco'uku}?
>Starting of the conclusion that happened earlier?

You are using the ZAhO tenses that are points to make things more difficult
than they might otherwise be, resulting in semantic nonsense.

Given enough torturous thinking, I may be able to come up with an
interpretation that makes sense, but not online when I am trying thus far
unsuccessfully to be brief today so I can prepare some orders.

>>It is not clear whether or not that conclusion is in the past or future of
>>the space time reference. puzuco'aku bazico'uku would be in the past of
>>the reference whereas puzico'aku bazuco'uku would be inthe future of the
>>reference.
>
>In any case, the conclusion would have to start in the past, wouldn't it?

I think that the use of the imaginary journey metaphor is such that once
you have moved away from the reference on the journey, it ceases to be a
very useful reference for that bridi.

>>>I don't see the need to force it when you have not
>>>one compond tense but several distinct tenses.

>>
>>I'm not sure if any other interpretation makes sense, so I don't see how it
>>is "forced". Certainly not an implicit logical connective, since that can
>>so easily be made explicit with a multiple compound tense.
>
>Certainly not. I explained in my first answer why logical connection is
>different. For example: {mi pu je ba citka lo plise} means that I ate
>an apple in the past, and I will eat an apple in the future. Probably not
>the same one. {mi puku baku citka lo plise} would mean that my eating
>an apple was taking place in the past and will be taking place in the
>future, the same event, and thus the same at least one apple.

Remember that it is not necessarily the case that logical connectives
expand into separate bridi. I am not sure what has been said about tense
logical connection. But nonlogical connection in any event is not
expandible, so pu joi ba should work.

>> It's just
>>carrying a logical pattern to a rather extreme conclusion that probably
>>will never be useful (but pc could probably come up with an example if Nora
>>or John couldn't).
>
>I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. An example of what?

An example parallel to your house painting stumper above that makes sense
and justifies my interpretation as useful without going into time travel
scenarios (which were BTW envisioned as the ultimate interpretation of
nonsensical imaginary journeys in time).

lojbab

Jorge J. Llambías

unread,
Mar 5, 1999, 6:36:14 PM3/5/99
to

la bret cusku di'e

>.u'i, that's another perspective. if you don't know, that's a
>translation of part of a zen koan: two zen students & a zen master are
>looking at a flag... the first student: "it is the flag that moves" --
>the second student: "no, it is the breeze that moves" -- the master
>replies: "no, you are both wrong. it is the mind that moves."

That doesn't work so well in Lojban, because {muvdu} is much
more restricted than "moves". The flag flapping in the wind would
not be a {muvdu}, which is something that moves from one place to
another along some path. Probably {le lanci cu desku} is better.

As for the mind...Metaphorically, we could use {muvdu} for the
mind wandering from thought to thought, but obviously that's not
what the zen master meant. I suppose he meant that it is
the mind that "creates" the movement, being the one that
observes and names it, or something like that.

>mi na jetnu djuno .i mi na zgana lo tarmi be le temci .i mi jinvi le
>du'u le pensi be ro prenu cu na'e banzu le nu skicu le munje temci .i
>.ai mi na skicu le munje ja jetnu temci .i .ai mi skicu le se lifre be
>mi temci

i li'a i cu'u do le se lifri be do temci na sirji i mi na jimpe le du'u
do te smuni di'u makau i xu do na jinvi le du'u le temci cu purci
gi'a cabna gi'a balvi

>.i se'o mi ka'e frili denpa .i se'o mi so'i lo prenu cu prami .i se'o mi
>na'e cafne pensi la djes. .iu

i ki'anai i mi pu krici le du'u do dy pamrai

>ni'o ca le cabdei ku mi mutci pensi lo drata pendo be mi be'o noi se
>cmene la djEsikas. .a'uro'u .i .ue .uisai mi caca'o tavla ko'a .i ti'e
>le'e citno cu fenki zifre


i xamgu i a'o do joi la djEsikas cu nelsi'u ro'u i funza'a ko

SwiftRain

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 6:03:42 PM3/2/99
to
"Jorge J. Llamb�as" wrote:
>
> i ue mi na krici le du'u lo'e temci cu muvdu i xu do go'i

ni'o

.i lu "muvdu fa lo lanci" li'u
.i lu "na go'i .i muvdu fa lo brife" li'u
.i lu "na go'e ja go'i .i muvdu fa lo menli" li'u

no'i
.i cumki fa le nu mi na satci cusku .i mi na djuno le du'u makau temci
muvdu .i paunai xu muvdu fa lo lifre? .i paunai xu muvdu fa lo munje?

> i u'i le nu do jinvi le du'u lo masti be li so'u cu clani temci

well, lojban tenses are relative... .i ku'i jo'a loi masti ca simlu le
ka clani kei fi mi

> cu stidi le nu do mutce citno i a'u do ma nanca

li pabi

> Maybe {ca lo lirmau}, "at an earlier time".

that might work... it seems it's always hard to tell what lojban will
give the right sense, since there's so little idiom.


Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 10:00:36 PM3/4/99
to
>From: John Cowan <co...@locke.ccil.org>
>la lojbab. cusku di'e

>> >I suppose that {mi ba'oku klama le zarci} is the same as
>> >{mi ba'o klama le zarci} and not {mi ba'o zo'e klama le zarci}, right?
>>
>> I hesitate to say, because John and I have answered the question before,
>> and it might even be in the Book. My interpretation barring John saying
>> otherwise, however, would be that the ku form presumes the ellipsized
>> sumti.
>
>No, actually the Codex Woldemar does say otherwise: tense+KU is equivalent
>to tense+selbri, no matter whether it is before the selbri or not:
>they are explicitly declared so at the beginning of Section 10.12.

Fine. I defer to the Codex. I figured you had said it somewhere.

>> The paradigm that had us add puku for example was originally that
>> of ellipsized sumti, and not as a semantics-free transformational grammar
>> maneuver. It just was convenient and logical to make puku adjacent to the
>> selbri be equivalent to pu in the selbri. But I think that
>> transformability need not be so for ba'o.
>

>Perhaps it should not have been so, but it is so as of today.

Either/or, doesn't much matter - I argued only from history in case you had
not said anything. You said it; the Book is baselined.

>> I know that in support of the compounding interpretation, there were some
>> things that could not be said with a single tenseconstruct because
>> ungrammatical, which John said would be expressed using two consecutive
>> tenses. For example,
>>
>> mi baki ne'iki klama
>

>This whole example is rather pointless, I think, unless the ki's
>are subscripted, because the second ki will override the first,
>so this is the same as bane'iki.

Hey, it's the same as your example 14.1).

>> It was a late modification that John made that allowed both orders to be
>> possible without a ku.
>

>Basically requiring fe'e to flag *every* TAhE, ROI, or ZAhO that
>was about space eliminated the ambiguity. (Previously a fe'e
>was needed to *separate* time and space interval qualifiers,
>which meant they had to be in a fixed order.)

Ah, now I remember.

lojbab

John Cowan

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 5:15:44 PM3/4/99
to
la lojbab. cusku di'e

> >I suppose that {mi ba'oku klama le zarci} is the same as
> >{mi ba'o klama le zarci} and not {mi ba'o zo'e klama le zarci}, right?
>
> I hesitate to say, because John and I have answered the question before,
> and it might even be in the Book. My interpretation barring John saying
> otherwise, however, would be that the ku form presumes the ellipsized
> sumti.

No, actually the Codex Woldemar does say otherwise: tense+KU is equivalent
to tense+selbri, no matter whether it is before the selbri or not:
they are explicitly declared so at the beginning of Section 10.12.

> The paradigm that had us add puku for example was originally that


> of ellipsized sumti, and not as a semantics-free transformational grammar
> maneuver. It just was convenient and logical to make puku adjacent to the
> selbri be equivalent to pu in the selbri. But I think that
> transformability need not be so for ba'o.

Perhaps it should not have been so, but it is so as of today.

> I know that in support of the compounding interpretation, there were some


> things that could not be said with a single tenseconstruct because
> ungrammatical, which John said would be expressed using two consecutive
> tenses. For example,
>
> mi baki ne'iki klama

This whole example is rather pointless, I think, unless the ki's
are subscripted, because the second ki will override the first,
so this is the same as bane'iki.

There are other examples that make somewhat more sense, though.

> It was a late modification that John made that allowed both orders to be
> possible without a ku.

Basically requiring fe'e to flag *every* TAhE, ROI, or ZAhO that
was about space eliminated the ambiguity. (Previously a fe'e
was needed to *separate* time and space interval qualifiers,
which meant they had to be in a fixed order.)

> Remember that it is not necessarily the case that logical connectives
> expand into separate bridi. I am not sure what has been said about tense
> logical connection.

Tense logical connection is expandable: only tanru logical connection
is not.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 11:36:16 PM3/2/99
to
At 12:16 AM 2/28/99 -0300, you wrote:
>From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jo...@intermedia.com.ar>

>>>You and John seem to agree that {puzuku bazuku} is the same as
>{puzubazuku}.
>>>I checked the refgram and I can't find this mentioned there.
>>
>>Start with example 13.5), pg 234, combining with the discussion on page
>>216, section 1 on the equivalence of tense+ku with selbri tense.
>
>That explains what {puzubazuku} means. Nowhere does it say what
>to do when you have two separate ku tenses.

By the text and examples on pg 216, 13.5) on pg 234 is equivalent to
puku mi baku klama le zarci.

You actually have to go one step further to combine them by making
mi puku ba klama le zarci
and assuming that this becomes
mi puba klama le zarci
and only then can you say
mi pubaku klama le zarci

Introducing zu or co'a or co'u should not change how this works, though the


backwardsness of some of the tense/modals when used as sumti tcita might
cause them to need to be reversed in some cases.

>>The use


>>of sequential tenses as being vector additive is the essential paradigm of

>>both the imaginary journey metaphor and the storytime convention.
>
>That's how you construct one compound tense. It doesn't tell you
>what to do when you have two non-compoundable tenses.

"Noncompoundable" is a grammatical issue arising solely from what John had

to do to make the grammar work under YACC and stay simple. I think it has


been clearly stated on the List, if not explicitly in the Book, that two
adjacent "noncompoundable" or "compoundable" for that matter tenses should

be treated as if they were compounded. I am only unsure whether this was


stated for particular kinds of noncompoundables or as a general case.


Example 14.1) pg 236 has two tenses, but one is a sumti tcita with elided
ku. If you ellipsized the sumti, you would have puzukiku ne'ikiku. Here
again, I am not sure whether these are compoundable in this order pending a
current parser.

>>>The problem with this view is that it doesn't work in general. For
>example,
>>>{puco'aku baco'uku} cannot be welded into a single tense.
>>
>>?pau It cannot grammatically, ?ji it cannot logically be so welded
>

>Neither grammatically nor, as far as I can see, logically.


>
>>was starting the event of later ending X?
>

>The start of the end is {co'a co'u}. That could either be in the
>past or in the future. I don't understand what you mean by
>"was starting the event of later ending X". Did the ending of X
>start in the past or in the future?

Take an imaginary journey to the past and we have an initiation of an event.
That event is the future (relative to the pu offset already stated)
conclusion of X.

It is not clear whether or not that conclusion is in the past or future of


the space time reference. puzuco'aku bazico'uku would be in the past of
the reference whereas puzico'aku bazuco'uku would be inthe future of the
reference.

>And of course, you'd still have to give explanations for more
>complex non-compoundable posibilities, like
>{puzu'aku caga'uku bari'uku}.

Is this a challenge?

>From the space time reference go to the past then to the right, then remain
in the then-time and go up and then go to the future and then go to the right.

Seems perfectly clear to me, though it would make a rather awful English
tense.

Back then to (my) left, he was then above going to X on the right.

>The imaginary journey works well for single compound
>tenses. I don't see the need to force it when you have not


>one compond tense but several distinct tenses.

I'm not sure if any other interpretation makes sense, so I don't see how it
is "forced". Certainly not an implicit logical connective, since that can

so easily be made explicit with a multiple compound tense. It's just


carrying a logical pattern to a rather extreme conclusion that probably
will never be useful (but pc could probably come up with an example if Nora
or John couldn't).

>>You could use a nonlogical interval connective to get an interval starting


>>in the past and ending in the future. pubi'iba? (I'm very rusty.)
>

>Yes, I never said you couldn't, but that doesn't address what I said.
>And {puku baku}, in my interpretation, does not describe an interval.
>It describes only two time points.

If they are two time points relative to the reference, then that would be
puku pe'eje baku or pujebaku. A single bridi does not describe two events
unless you have a roi tense or a logical connective. If you are describing
a set of points for an intermittent event, you should use something like
nonlogical connective ce or joi

lojbab

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages