Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Ivan A Derzhanski

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 10:47:58 AM7/4/00
to loj...@egroups.com
Jorge Llambias wrote:
> But the same type of pragmatics that allows us to use {za'o}
> for events that are not processes should allow us to use
> whatever the mirror of {za'o} is for the mirror situation.

I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by `mirror'. There is
a reason for the current asymmetry of even contours, and it is
the fact that causality works forward in time. This is why a
process can have only one kind of beginning but two kinds of end,
or a total of three points that can define the contour (leaving
aside temporary pauses and resumptions):

{co'a}: event brings forth process
{mo'u}: process brings forth event
{co'u}: event discontinues process

There doesn't seem to be a vacancy for a fourth point. (Surely
it is not `process discontinues event', because events can't be
discontinued, they just happen. By `event' here I mean a point
event, also known as an achievement.)

> la ivAn cusku di'e
> >`Is dinner ready? -- No, it's still cooking.'
> >(Certainly not overcooking.)
[...]
> >Emphasis on real-world {ca'o} ({pu'omo'u}, {pu'oco'u})
> >in contrast to hypothetical {ba'o} and {za'o}.
> >This is what we need to express.
>
> I'm not sure I follow this. {ba'o} and {za'o} are real world too.

What I'm trying to say is that the question (formulated as it is)
brings up a possible world in which completion has been attained,
thus either {ba'o broda} or {za'o broda} holds (depending on
whether the associated activity has been discontinued after having
brought about its culmination), and the answer states that in fact
it is {ca'o broda} that holds and {ba'o/za'o broda} do not.

> la adam cusku di'e
> >I have washed the car, but I have not yet walked the dog.
> >i mi ba'o lumci le karce i ku'i mi pu'o dzugau le gerku
>
> There is nothing strange about your English phrase, but
> reading the lojban one I am puzzled by that {ki'u}.
> It sounds odd, like saying "I have washed the car, but
> I am going to walk the dog". Why "but"?

It's the information structure (the location of the focus
of the utterance). What the Lojban is failing to say is
`... but as for {dzugau le gerku} [topic], I'm {pu'o} [focus]
that part'. In contrast to, that is, the {ba'o} in {ba'o
lumci le karce}; also in contrast to some other (hypothetical)
situation in which {ba'o dzugau le gerku}.

--Ivan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/4/_/17627/_/962787607/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com

Jorge Llambias

unread,
Jul 5, 2000, 9:57:08 PM7/5/00
to loj...@egroups.com
la ivAn cusku di'e

>I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by `mirror'. There is


>a reason for the current asymmetry of even contours, and it is
>the fact that causality works forward in time.

I don't dispute that of course. What word should I use, "dual"?
It is certainly a duality relationship, much like the
relationship between "necessary" and "possible", or the
relationship between "all" and "some", or between "and"
and "or". In all of these we have X = 'not Y not' for
some suitable use of 'not'. I understand X and Y to be duals,
but I seem to recall someone objecting to this term in the
past as well.

>This is why a
>process can have only one kind of beginning but two kinds of end,
>or a total of three points that can define the contour (leaving
>aside temporary pauses and resumptions):
>
>{co'a}: event brings forth process
>{mo'u}: process brings forth event
>{co'u}: event discontinues process
>
>There doesn't seem to be a vacancy for a fourth point. (Surely
>it is not `process discontinues event', because events can't be
>discontinued, they just happen. By `event' here I mean a point
>event, also known as an achievement.)

If we can make a distinction between "event discontinues process"
and a "process brings forth event", I don't see why we can't
distinguish "event brings forth process" from "process leaves
event behind", distinguishing a mere circumstantial start from
an actual birth or origination.

> > >`Is dinner ready? -- No, it's still cooking.'
>

>What I'm trying to say is that the question (formulated as it is)
>brings up a possible world in which completion has been attained,
>thus either {ba'o broda} or {za'o broda} holds (depending on
>whether the associated activity has been discontinued after having
>brought about its culmination), and the answer states that in fact
>it is {ca'o broda} that holds and {ba'o/za'o broda} do not.

Ok, I see. Then "still" in this case indicates that the
activity is occurring beyond the end point postulated
by the question. An externally imposed culmination more
than one intrinsic to the process.

> > >I have washed the car, but I have not yet walked the dog.
> > >i mi ba'o lumci le karce i ku'i mi pu'o dzugau le gerku
>

>It's the information structure (the location of the focus
>of the utterance). What the Lojban is failing to say is
>`... but as for {dzugau le gerku} [topic], I'm {pu'o} [focus]
>that part'. In contrast to, that is, the {ba'o} in {ba'o
>lumci le karce}; also in contrast to some other (hypothetical)
>situation in which {ba'o dzugau le gerku}.

Maybe the way to get that would be:

i mi ba'o lumci le karce i mi pu'o ku'i dzugau le gerku

co'o mi'e xorxes


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do sports heroes like Derek Jeter, Mia Hamm,
Vince Carter and Peyton Manning hang out? Where else?
Click now and find ç²—m all here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/6211/4/_/17627/_/962848628/

Jorge Llambias

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 7:51:23 PM7/12/00
to loj...@egroups.com
la ivAn cusku di'e

>We've just had the testimony of Robin the Turk to the effect that
>_not yet_ carries no expectation (in this it differs from _still not_).
>And p.228 of the Woldemar Codex states: `The cmavo {pu'o} [...] refer[s]
>to an event that has not yet begun'. Sounds like an affinity between
>_not yet_ and {pu'o}.

Ok, let me define better what I am saying.

We have four related situations that I find interesting and
want to be able to express in Lojban. The situations are the
following:

1- An event happening when it should no longer be happening.
I use the tag "still" for this situation, because I think it
is more or less what "still" means, but it is not crucial
for me that it really be the exact meaning of English "still",
it is just a handy keyword.

2- An event is not happening yet even though it should
already be happening. I use the tags "still not" and "not yet"
for this situation, again with the same caveats. I think
that is what they mean in English, but if they mean something
else, it doesn't affect the meaning I want to express.
I am sure there are also subtle differences betwen them
in English, but I am not presently exploring those differences.
(Probably "still not" carries more expectation than "not yet"
that the event should already be on its way, but I think both
carry at least some expectation. In any case, that is English
semantics, not my goal here.)

3- An event happening that should not yet have started.
I tag this situation with "already", whether or not that
is the meaning of the English word. (I think its meaning
is that or very close to that, but it doesn't matter.)

4- An event not happening that should still be happening.
I tag this one as "no longer", whether or not that phrase
carries this expectation in English. (I think it does to
at least a minimum extent.)

Now, we can see some affinities between these four
situations and some of Lojban's aspects. For example,
we can make the following associations:

za'o - "still"
pu'o - "not yet"
ca'o - "already"
ba'o - "no longer"

These agree in several properties. For example, {za'o}
and {ca'o}, like "still" and "already", show that the event
is indeed happening, and "pu'o" and "ba'o", like "not yet"
and "no longer", correspond to the not-happening stage.

They are also good matches for indicating the relative
position of the actual event: In {za'o} and {ca'o} the actual
event is occurring. In {ba'o}, like in "no longer", the actual
event is in the past. In {pu'o}, like in "not yet", the actual
event (if it occurs at all) is in the future.

But what about the expectations? Here the only good match
is {za'o}, because it indicates that the event is happening
beyond the expected end, just what I want for the situation
I tagged as "still".

None of the others match the expectations that I require.
{pu'o} does not have the expectation that the event should
already be happening, {ca'o} does not carry the expectation
that the event should not yet have started, {ba'o} does not
have the expectation that the event should still be happening.
So, in that sense, {za'o} is more affine to "still" than any
of the others are to their closest match.

Now, how do I get the others from {za'o}? "still not" is
the easiest, it is just {za'o na}. I am tempted to use
{na za'o} for what I tagged as "no longer". It may not
be strictly correct, it all depends on how the scope of
{na} plays with the expectation of {za'o}, but in the
absence of anything better, I will use it. Finally,
for the "already" situation I would use {na za'o na},
whith the same comment as for {na za'o}.

[process causes culmination]

> > But does it work in Lojban?
>
>It works in the world. It is a semantic thing, not something about this
>or that language.

The effect of building a house is a built house. That I don't
dispute. What I dispute is that {le nu mi mo'u zbasu lo dinju}
is something like "a built house", an effect. To me it is the
culminating part of a process, a part of it.

>Of course, there is the problem of how every language
>goes about expressing it.

Right. That is what we are addressing here.

> > le pu'u mi zbasu le dinju cu rinka le mu'e mi mo'u zbasu le dinju
>
>Try {le pu'u mi ca'o zbasu ...}.

But why is that a {pu'u}? Doesn't it have a single phase?

> > Ok, we're doing different things. You say: given the way Lojban
> > ZAhOs are, we can arrange them so and explain them in terms of
> > a mirror placed at {mu'o}.
>
>Well, yes, but I also say that there is an objective reason Lojban
>ZAhOs are the way they are. They aren't just a whim of a few people
>who made that component of the language; they reflect the way natlangs
>are, and the way things are.

I will grant you that that's the way natlangs are, you're the
expert there. But objective reality? There are infinitely many
aspects that we could define for an event. Surely the ones
selected by natlangs are the most striking and useful, but
in what sense are they the only possible ones? Couldn't an
aspect for example point to the first half of an event?
Another to the part where the event is almost but not quite
done? Another to the part where it is least intense? One could
think of millions of mostly useless and whimsical aspects,
surely there is nothing out there in reality that forces you
to only speak of Lojban's eight!

>Let's forget about Lojban for a moment. Let's do some mathematics.
[...]
>So we ended up distinguishing three points, which divide the domain
>of the function _f(t)_ into four intervals. Now we may (we don't
>have to, but it's handy) plug in the Lojban ZAhOs: {pu'o} _t < t'_,
>{co'a} _t'_, {co'a} _t' < t < t*_, {mo'u} _t*_, {za'o} _t* < t < t"_,
>{co'u} _t"_, {ba'o} _t" < t_.

That is very nice, but it is just one possible explanation,
and of course it can only go so far. For example it says nothing
of when does the {pu'o} phase start. I suppose you are not saying
that {pu'o} is applicable for all time before the event happens.
I wouldn't agree with that.

> > I'm saying that if we were constructing a system of aspects,
> > it would be nice to exploit the full symmetry of placing a
> > mirror at {ca'o}.
>
>Of course it would -- I love symmetry myself -- as long as that can
>be matched to some meaning. Trouble is, I don't see how it can.

I do. I can think of many events with a natural starting point
that doesn't always coincide with the actual starting point.

co'o mi'e xorxes


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law.com is the preeminent online destination for legal professionals.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6874/4/_/17627/_/963445890/

Ivan A Derzhanski

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 8:42:50 AM7/6/00
to loj...@egroups.com
Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la ivAn cusku di'e
> >I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by `mirror'. There is
> >a reason for the current asymmetry of even contours, and it is
> >the fact that causality works forward in time.
>
> I don't dispute that of course. What word should I use, "dual"?
> It is certainly a duality relationship [...]. In all of these

> we have X = 'not Y not' for some suitable use of 'not'.

Yes, `dual' is indeed the usual term for this.

> >{co'a}: event brings forth process
> >{mo'u}: process brings forth event
> >{co'u}: event discontinues process
> >
> >There doesn't seem to be a vacancy for a fourth point.

[...]


> If we can make a distinction between "event discontinues process"
> and a "process brings forth event", I don't see why we can't
> distinguish "event brings forth process" from "process leaves
> event behind", distinguishing a mere circumstantial start from
> an actual birth or origination.

But that would involve no causality, merely the coincidence
of two times (of the event and of the start of the process),
because a process can't cause something except by having gone
on for a while, and that is already covered by {mo'u}.
Which may imply that {co'a} is {za'o}'s mirror, in the sense
of being the symmetrically allocated item in the sequence
{pu'o -- co'a -- ca'o -- mu'o -- za'o -- co'u -- ba'o}.

> > > >I have washed the car, but I have not yet walked the dog.

[...]


> Maybe the way to get that would be:
>
> i mi ba'o lumci le karce i mi pu'o ku'i dzugau le gerku

Yes, that looks very good to me.

--Ivan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do sports heroes like Derek Jeter, Mia Hamm,
Vince Carter and Peyton Manning hang out? Where else?

Click now and find ‘em all here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/6211/4/_/17627/_/962893114/

Ivan A Derzhanski

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 5:03:46 PM7/11/00
to loj...@egroups.com
Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la ivAn cusku di'e
> >It may well be true that `still' is usually applicable where
> >{za'o} is. (A similar affinity probably exists between {pu'o}
> >and `not yet', and between {ba'o} and `no longer'.)
>
> I don't see a similar affinity there because neither {pu'o}
> nor {ba'o} have the "against expectations" component that
> {za'o} does have (indeed {pu'o} has in a sense the opposite
> expectation) and that "still", "not yet", "no longer"
> and "already" share.

We've just had the testimony of Robin the Turk to the effect that
_not yet_ carries no expectation (in this it differs from _still not_).
And p.228 of the Woldemar Codex states: `The cmavo {pu'o} [...] refer[s]
to an event that has not yet begun'. Sounds like an affinity between
_not yet_ and {pu'o}.

> I can't see a lot of difference between {za'o ca'o},
> {ca'o za'o} and {za'o} by itself though.

Let us look at example 10.10 from the Codex: {za'o ciksi le seldanfu
le tadgri} `keep on explaining the problem to the class' (meaning till
after they've understood it). Now {ca'o za'o} is merely a progressive
version of this; but I would interpret {za'o ca'o ciksi} as `keep on
explaining for an abnormally long time because they just won't get it'.


> >No, it isn't. The process brings forth its culmination by causing it.
>
> I don't see it. The event of my building a house does not cause
> the event of culmination of my building a house. The culmination
> is just one part of the event, just as the initiation is another
> part. How can the whole physically cause one of its parts?

Not the whole. The process, which is one part of the culminated event,
causes the culmination, which is another part.

> But does it work in Lojban?

It works in the world. It is a semantic thing, not something about this

or that language. Of course, there is the problem of how every language
goes about expressing it.

> le pu'u mi zbasu le dinju cu rinka le mu'e mi mo'u zbasu le dinju

Try {le pu'u mi ca'o zbasu ...}.

> >The mirror should go where the analysis reveals its place to be,
> >whether it looks natural or not.


>
> Ok, we're doing different things. You say: given the way Lojban
> ZAhOs are, we can arrange them so and explain them in terms of
> a mirror placed at {mu'o}.

Well, yes, but I also say that there is an objective reason Lojban
ZAhOs are the way they are. They aren't just a whim of a few people
who made that component of the language; they reflect the way natlangs
are, and the way things are.

Let's forget about Lojban for a moment. Let's do some mathematics.
You have a process which takes place in the interval _t' < t < t"_.
Let's represent it by a function _f(t)_, which is zero for _t < t'_
and for _t" < t_ and is positive (reflecting the intensity of the
process) for _t' < t < t"_.

The beginning and end are external to the process -- it doesn't cause
them. It is the culmination that is caused by the process, or more
precisely by the accumulation of the process. So we need to integrate
our function. Its integral by _t_ equals zero up to point _t'_, grows
smoothly until point _t"_ and is constant thereafter; and the point,
call it _t*_, where it reaches some predefined value is where the
culmination is.

So we ended up distinguishing three points, which divide the domain
of the function _f(t)_ into four intervals. Now we may (we don't
have to, but it's handy) plug in the Lojban ZAhOs: {pu'o} _t < t'_,
{co'a} _t'_, {co'a} _t' < t < t*_, {mo'u} _t*_, {za'o} _t* < t < t"_,
{co'u} _t"_, {ba'o} _t" < t_.

> I'm saying that if we were constructing a system of aspects,


> it would be nice to exploit the full symmetry of placing a
> mirror at {ca'o}.

Of course it would -- I love symmetry myself -- as long as that can
be matched to some meaning. Trouble is, I don't see how it can.

--Ivan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
http://click.egroups.com/1/6631/4/_/17627/_/963384498/

Jorge Llambias

unread,
Jul 3, 2000, 9:18:26 PM7/3/00
to loj...@egroups.com
la adam cusku di'e

>Two hungry people sit down to eat. After having barely
>started eating, and not passing any potential end, one
>of them suddenly receives a message that they must leave
>immediately.

That message is a potential end.

>The second one protests:
>
>But I am still hungry.
>i ku'i mi mo'unai xagji
>
>i.e. I have not gotten to the natural completion of my
>being hungry.

That is a valid protest. "Now is not the completion
of my being hungry!". But it is also possible to take
the natural end that circumstances want to impose and
object that actuality doesn't agree: "My being hungry
continues to happen beyond this end that circumstances
impose", i.e. {mi za'o xagji}. I would accept it readily.

>I suppose this leaves open the possibility
>that he is no longer hungry, having naturally completed
>it. Maybe "pu'omo'u" is better.

But that says that the end of his being hungry is
actually envisaged. It would be strange to say that
precisely when the opposite is true. Everything seems
to indicate that the end will not occur.

>Someone watching a sinking boat comments:
>
>It no longer sails the seas.
>i co'u fanli'u loi xamsi.

The two comments may be valid, but they refer to different
aspects of the situation. The lojban certainly refers to
the transition that is taking place. The English I think
would be better as "It will no longer sail the seas".
In the present tense it does not seem to describe the
current situation. You can say "it no longer sails the
seas" any time after it has sunk, while the lojban applies
just during the sinking.

>I think that "is about to", and "on the verge of" are
>as bad translations of "pu'o" as "continues to" is of
>"ca'o".

I agree that "continues to" is very bad, but I'm not
too offended by the other two. Maybe they put too much
emphasis on the proximity, but that is usually right
anyway. But you're right it is not required.

>"is about to" is "bazi" and implies that the
>event will happen. "ba'o" tells us that the event has
>passed, but doesn't tell us how long before the reference
>point it occurred, and likewise "pu'o" tells us that
>the event is completely after the reference point, but
>doesn't tell us how long after.

But {pu'o} and {ba'o} are much more than that. {ba'o}
does not just say that the event has passed. It describes
the wake of the event. Similarly {pu'o} is not just for
an event after the reference point, but for a situation
where the shadow of the event is already present.

>I'm not so sure that "not yet" necessarily implies that
>the event should have already started.


>
>I have washed the car, but I have not yet walked the
>dog.

>i mi ba'o lumci le karce i ku'i mi pu'o dzugau le gerku

There is nothing strange about your English phrase, but


reading the lojban one I am puzzled by that {ki'u}.
It sounds odd, like saying "I have washed the car, but
I am going to walk the dog". Why "but"?

With more context it can make sense: "Have you finished
what you were doing? Are you free now?". After that
question it makes sense.

But the English with "not yet" made sense from the start,
because "not yet" puts "walk the dog" as another action
that should have been done, and thus it is a proper contrast
to "wash the car". In your lojban version there is nothing
atr first sight to contrast.

>I don't think that there's necessarily an implication
>that walking the dog should have already occured. Perhaps
>the speaker has just finished washing the car, and is
>merely giving a status report.

But the status report is "I have washed the car and I am
going to walk the dog". Certainly "not yet" adds something
else to it.

>What "not yet" does imply,
>however, is that there is some reason that we are considering
>the possibility that the bridi will occur.

Sure there is, it should already be occurring (or have occurred
in this case)!

>However, this
>is implied by the fact that the bridi is mentioned at
>all. If the fact that the event should have already started
>is really important in the context, you have to use "za'o
>na".

Yes, "still not" = "not yet".

>I suppose that this means that in some cases "ba'o" by
>itself could be "already", but only when the event has
>ended, as in "I have already eaten",

So "I have already eaten" means just "I have eaten"?

Comsider these:

I am eating.
I am already eating.
I have eaten.
I have already eaten.

Does it make sense to attribute a perfective meaning to
"already", when that meaning only shows up with a verb
that already shows the perfective by itsellf, but not
otherwise? Is there really nothing added by "already" in
the last sentence?

>and only when you
>don't need to imply that the event started earlier than
>it should have, as in:
>
>Did Jim already leave?
>i xu la djim ba'o cliva

But put the slightest emphasis on "already" and its
true colours show up. "Did Jim leave already?" is surely
different than "Has Jim left?"

> >>Thus, "already" could sometimes be "na pu'o/pu'onai",
> >
> >I can't imagine how that one could work. To me that
>does
> >not even say that the event need be happening.
>
>If it is not the case that it is before the start of
>the event, then the event has already started (at least
>in bivalent logic, I think :).

No, it could never start at all. Or it could have started
and already finished.

>If "already" is the opposite of "za'o", maybe we could
>use "to'eza'o", before the natural beginning.

And it is grammatical, too! It might work.

co'o mi'e xorxes


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere!
Conference in the whole family on the same call.
Let the fights begin! Visit Firetalk.com - Click below.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5476/4/_/17627/_/962673508/

Jorge Llambias

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 6:44:54 PM7/10/00
to loj...@egroups.com

la djan cusku di'e

>The process of building a house brings forth the achievement of
>house-is-built.

But does it work in Lojban?

le pu'u mi zbasu le dinju cu rinka le mu'e mi mo'u zbasu le dinju

It sounds wrong to me, because it sounds like the whole being
the physical cause of the part:

le mu'e mi mo'u zbasu le dinju cu pagbu le pu'u mi zbasu le dinju

Or did you mean something else?

Ivan A Derzhanski

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 10:00:48 AM7/14/00
to loj...@egroups.com
Jorge Llambias wrote:
[replying to me]

> We have four related situations that I find interesting and
> want to be able to express in Lojban. The situations are the
> following:
>
> 1- An event happening when it should no longer be happening.
> I use the tag "still" for this situation, because I think it
> is more or less what "still" means, but it is not crucial
> for me that it really be the exact meaning of English "still",
> it is just a handy keyword.

Fine. And by what standard should it no longer be happening?
All these `still'-like categories imply the following things:

(a) a current positive state (if something still is, it is),
(b) an earlier positive state (for something to still be,
it must have been),
(c) an assumed later negative state (you don't think of things
as still being if they are going to last for ever),
(d) a hypothetical current negative state, which is contextually
salient in some way or the other, but it may or may not be
someone's expectation, may or may not have been likely, may
or may not be what should be, etc. (a natlang may express
some of these things by choosing one form or another; Lojban
would probably use attitudinals for this purpose, eg `still
not' may be `not yet' + <impatience>, <surprise> or the like).

(Mutatis mutandis for the other three items.)

> But what about the expectations? Here the only good match
> is {za'o}, because it indicates that the event is happening
> beyond the expected end, just what I want for the situation
> I tagged as "still".

Except that {za'o} isn't about an expected end, it's about the
natural end, which may be the same thing in some situations,
but in the general case it is not.

{le ctuca pu za'o ciksi le seldanfu le tadgri}.
(They had understood it already.)
`The teacher was still explaining the problem to the class.'
(Very likely they hadn't yet.)

The expressions `expected (?) end point' and `natural end'
may sound kind of similar, but the concepts are different.
(Whorf is observing all this from his cloud, and smiling.)

> The effect of building a house is a built house. That I don't
> dispute. What I dispute is that {le nu mi mo'u zbasu lo dinju}
> is something like "a built house", an effect. To me it is the
> culminating part of a process, a part of it.

The general way of looking at this is that the unculminated process
and the culmination that it causes together make up the culminated
process.

> > > le pu'u mi zbasu le dinju cu rinka le mu'e mi mo'u zbasu le dinju
> >
> >Try {le pu'u mi ca'o zbasu ...}.
>
> But why is that a {pu'u}? Doesn't it have a single phase?

Well, it does have a beginning. And an end, too, which is usually
cotemporary with the culmination, unless you go on and {za'o zbasu}
`overbuild' the house. Most importantly, it's dynamic; it takes a
period of time, and eventually can cause something else to happen
(in this case the house's coming into being).

> >[...] I also say that there is an objective reason Lojban


> >ZAhOs are the way they are. They aren't just a whim of a few
> >people who made that component of the language; they reflect
> >the way natlangs are, and the way things are.
>
> I will grant you that that's the way natlangs are, you're the
> expert there.

I had better be he, as I wrote my doctoral thesis on this stuff.
(Which of course means that I've been exposed to much mainstream
aspectology, in addition to having done my own thinking, and I
may not always realise which is which. You've been warned.)

> But objective reality? There are infinitely many
> aspects that we could define for an event. Surely the ones
> selected by natlangs are the most striking and useful, but
> in what sense are they the only possible ones? Couldn't an
> aspect for example point to the first half of an event?
> Another to the part where the event is almost but not quite
> done? Another to the part where it is least intense? One could
> think of millions of mostly useless and whimsical aspects,
> surely there is nothing out there in reality that forces you
> to only speak of Lojban's eight!

I don't know about millions, but certainly one could take into
account things that Lojban's selma'o ZAhO does not, and very
different (and meaningful) systems of aspect-like modifiers
could arise. For example, one could introduce modifiers for
`with waxing/steady/waning intensity', `closer to/farther from
the beginning than to the end', or other parameters like that.

If you want to stay away from infinity, you have to choose those
parameters of the event contour that you're going to express.
Lojban's ZAhO, for example, ignore intensity and focus on the
existence of a process or event and the causal links between them.
The question is then: Having chosen those fundamental parameters,
does it offer a complete system built upon them? and it seems
to me that Lojban's system is indeed complete, in that if one
wants to augment it, one has to add another dimension.

> >Let's forget about Lojban for a moment. Let's do some mathematics.
> [...]

> it is just one possible explanation, and of course it can only go
> so far. For example it says nothing of when does the {pu'o} phase
> start. I suppose you are not saying that {pu'o} is applicable for
> all time before the event happens. I wouldn't agree with that.

The beginning of an event's prelude and the end of its aftermath are
indeed a matter in which pragmatics raises a very loud voice; something
like `sufficiently close to the event that it can be relevant' tends
to be assumed.

> I do. I can think of many events with a natural starting point
> that doesn't always coincide with the actual starting point.

What do you have in mind?

--
<fa-al-_haylu wa-al-laylu wa-al-baydA'u ta`rifunI
wa-as-sayfu wa-ar-rum.hu wa-al-qir.tAsu wa-al-qalamu>
(Abu t-Tayyib Ahmad Ibn Hussayn al-Mutanabbi)
Ivan A Derzhanski <http://www.math.bas.bg/~iad/>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria <i...@math.bas.bg>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR

http://click.egroups.com/1/6630/4/_/17627/_/963643652/

Jorge Llambias

unread,
Jul 9, 2000, 1:06:22 PM7/9/00
to loj...@egroups.com
la ivAn cusku di'e

> > This is really the only sense in which a process "brings forth"
> > the culmination event anyway, isn't it?


>
>No, it isn't. The process brings forth its culmination by causing it.

I don't see it. The event of my building a house does not cause
the event of culmination of my building a house.
The culmination is just one part of the event, just as the
initiation is another part. How can the whole physically cause
one of its parts?

> > >{pu'o -- co'a -- ca'o -- mu'o -- za'o -- co'u -- ba'o}.
> > pu'o - co'a - xxx - xxx - ca'o - mu'o - za'o - co'u - ba'o
>
>Only if we start with the preconceived notion that {ca'o} is somehow
>a more natural placing and then try to twist our analysis so as to
>justify that. This is not what I'm interested in doing. The mirror


>should go where the analysis reveals its place to be, whether it
>looks natural or not.

Ok, we're doing different things. You say: given the way Lojban
ZAhOs are, we can arrange them so and explain them in terms of
a mirror placed at {mu'o}.

I'm saying that if we were constructing a system of aspects,


it would be nice to exploit the full symmetry of placing a
mirror at {ca'o}.

co'o mi'e xorxes


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere!

Visit Firetalk.com - click below.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5479/4/_/17627/_/963162383/

John Cowan

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:46:36 PM7/10/00
to Jorge Llambias, loj...@egroups.com
Jorge Llambias wrote:

> I don't see it. The event of my building a house does not cause
> the event of culmination of my building a house.

The process of building a house brings forth the achievement of
house-is-built. For another example, the process of fighting a
war brings forth victory (or defeat or a negotiated settlement);
battles like the Battle of New Orleans are in the "za'o" period.

(For non-Usonians, this battle was fought in 1815 between the U.S. and the
U.K. after the peace treaty had been signed, because the combatants
had not yet been informed. Although the U.S. gained none of its
war aims, it did win this battle -- catapulting the successful
general to the Presidency.)

--

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jco...@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
0% Introductory APR!
Instant Approval!
Aria Visa - get yours today.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6035/4/_/17627/_/963258469/

Jorge Llambias

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 1:07:10 PM7/13/00
to loj...@egroups.com

la jimc cusku di'e

> B. Am I too late to get the special price? No, the sale is still
> going on. (no expectation)

The question sets up the expectation. Compare with:

B. Am I too early to get the special price? No, the sale is
already going on.

You can't switch answers, because each contrasts with a
different expectation. You could answer both with "the sale
is going on", but still/already contradict different expectations.

> B. Am I late? No, the class has not yet started. (No expectation --

Again it is the question that sets up the expectation.


>A. The bastards left without me! They should have waited. (expectation,
> but I wouldn't use "already".)

You wouldn't say "The bastards already left!"?

What seems incompatible with "already" is "without me", which
makes sense because it is not "the bastards leave without me"
that should happen later.

>B. I should have gotten up on time; the class has already started.
> (no expectation)

If I had gotten up on time, the class would not have (then) already
started. That is the situation "already" is contrasting with.
"The class has already started" does not just mean "the class
has started".

>B. When will the green bus come? Never; they are no longer green; they
> have all been painted red. (The speaker doesn't expect that the
> event should still be happening, though he might sense that the
> listener, the one asking the question, feels that way.)

Of course. I don't mean speaker expectation. I mean the way the
world is being described in the context. The speaker would not
use "no longer" unless a contrast was required.

>Perhaps the right conclusion is that in English, "still" / "not yet" /
>"already" / "no longer" really are pretty pure event contour tags, and the
>expectation that the event "should" be happening or not, is carried through
>separate cues, which in English are often not explicit words but more in
>the nature of context and body language.

I doubt that is the case. When compared with more pure forms
they always seem to add something.

co'o mi'e xorxes

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.

http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/4/_/17627/_/963511891/

And Rosta

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 10:37:55 PM7/14/00
to loj...@egroups.com
Xorxes to Ivan:

[...]


> Ok, let me define better what I am saying.
>
> We have four related situations that I find interesting and
> want to be able to express in Lojban. The situations are the
> following:
>
> 1- An event happening when it should no longer be happening.
> I use the tag "still" for this situation, because I think it

[etc.]

> Now, we can see some affinities between these four
> situations and some of Lojban's aspects. For example,
> we can make the following associations:
>
> za'o - "still"
> pu'o - "not yet"
> ca'o - "already"
> ba'o - "no longer"
>
> These agree in several properties. For example, {za'o}
> and {ca'o}, like "still" and "already", show that the event
> is indeed happening, and "pu'o" and "ba'o", like "not yet"
> and "no longer", correspond to the not-happening stage.

I think there's a mistake here. It's with the putative
za'o--"still" affinity. Not to deny such an affinity, but
it doesn't belong in the overall pattern, which is more
like:

still = "ca'o, not ba'o"
not yet = "pu'o, not ca'o"
already = "ca'o, not pu'o"
no longer = "ba'o, not ca'o"

"za'o", however, is "ba'o completion, and ca'o". [Can't do
that in proper Lojban at the mo, bcs my wife's asleep in
the room with my woldy codex in.]

Presumably "ca'o, not ba'o" can quite easily be rendered into
Lojban, and I seem to recall this already having been done in
your exchange with Ivan.

> They are also good matches for indicating the relative
> position of the actual event: In {za'o} and {ca'o} the actual
> event is occurring. In {ba'o}, like in "no longer", the actual
> event is in the past. In {pu'o}, like in "not yet", the actual
> event (if it occurs at all) is in the future.
>
> But what about the expectations? Here the only good match
> is {za'o}, because it indicates that the event is happening
> beyond the expected end, just what I want for the situation
> I tagged as "still".

But the only reason why the continuation of za'o broda is
unexpected is that events that instantiate a telic event type
*normally* cease once the telic event type has been instantiated.
But that's an accident of the way (our conceptualization of) the
world is. But there's nothing intrinsic to za'o that entails or
even implies unexpectedness; za'o simply means "instantiates a
telic event type and continues after the telic event type has
been instantiated".

> None of the others match the expectations that I require.
> {pu'o} does not have the expectation that the event should
> already be happening, {ca'o} does not carry the expectation
> that the event should not yet have started, {ba'o} does not
> have the expectation that the event should still be happening.
> So, in that sense, {za'o} is more affine to "still" than any
> of the others are to their closest match.

I think you're going down the garden path with za'o. The solution
to your requirements is Ivan's -- the one I've given above.

>
> Now, how do I get the others from {za'o}? "still not" is
> the easiest, it is just {za'o na}. I am tempted to use
> {na za'o} for what I tagged as "no longer". It may not
> be strictly correct, it all depends on how the scope of
> {na} plays with the expectation of {za'o}, but in the
> absence of anything better, I will use it. Finally,
> for the "already" situation I would use {na za'o na},
> whith the same comment as for {na za'o}.

A rare case where we disagree without me fairly quickly realizing
that you're right.

> >Of course it would -- I love symmetry myself -- as long as that can
> >be matched to some meaning. Trouble is, I don't see how it can.
>
> I do. I can think of many events with a natural starting point
> that doesn't always coincide with the actual starting point.

I think the discrepancy between you & Ivan here is due to you each
using slightly different analytical frameworks for ZAhO, where Ivan's
is both the one more standard in linguistics and the one that informed
the design of ZAhO, though not its exposition in reference material.

The crucial difference is whether you think in terms of 'natural
endpoints' or in terms of 'completeness/completability/possession
of intrinsic boundaries'. If you think in terms of 'natural endpoints',
as you and the reference materials do, then that naturally implies
analogous concepts involving natural startpoints (e.g. puberty).
But those concepts aren't implied if you think in terms of "intrinsic
boundaries", i.e. an event counterpart of the count/mass distinction
we're familiar with from English nouns (though not from Lojban selbri).
Put another way, it is no coincidence that in words for beginnings
there is no counterpart of the stop/finish distinction.

Mind you, I do agree with you. Last week I gave as an example of
"za'o counting up to ten" a situation where you're counting
through the teens having started from 1. But one can equally
imagine "xa'o counting from 20 to 30" [xa'o = experimental] as
denoting counting through the teens as part of a larger situation of
counting up to 30+. Hence I agree that, conceptually, there is some
kind of inceptive counterpart to za'o.

--And.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR

http://click.egroups.com/1/6628/4/_/17627/_/963628678/

Ivan A Derzhanski

unread,
Jul 8, 2000, 12:26:24 PM7/8/00
to loj...@egroups.com
Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la ivAn cusku di'e
> >But that would involve no causality, merely the coincidence
> >of two times (of the event and of the start of the process),
> >because a process can't cause something except by having gone
> >on for a while, and that is already covered by {mo'u}.
>
> Not physical causality, of course, but what gets called the
> origin or initiation may be a consequence of the process
> occurring, i.e. we could not talk of there having been a
> begining unless the process has been going on for a while.

Yes, for there to be a process (and a beginning and an end thereof),
it must take some time. But at the time of the beginning it has not
taken any time yet. Contrariwise, at the time of the culmination it
has done, though it may or may not take more time from then on.

> This is really the only sense in which a process "brings forth"
> the culmination event anyway, isn't it?

No, it isn't. The process brings forth its culmination by causing it.

> >Which may imply that {[ca'o]} is {za'o}'s mirror, in the sense


> >of being the symmetrically allocated item in the sequence

> >{pu'o -- co'a -- ca'o -- mu'o -- za'o -- co'u -- ba'o}.
>

> Only if we place the mirror at {mu'o}. But if we placed it
> at {ca'o} (I think a more natural placing), we have:


>
> pu'o - co'a - xxx - xxx - ca'o - mu'o - za'o - co'u - ba'o

Only if we start with the preconceived notion that {ca'o} is somehow
a more natural placing and then try to twist our analysis so as to
justify that. This is not what I'm interested in doing. The mirror
should go where the analysis reveals its place to be, whether it
looks natural or not.

--Ivan

James F. Carter

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 12:34:04 PM7/13/00
to Jorge Llambias, loj...@egroups.com
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>...

Understood that you're more interested in the Lojban than the malglico, but
since people are getting tangled up with what the English means, here's my
2 cents.

> 1- An event happening when it should no longer be happening.
> I use the tag "still" for this situation, because I think it
> is more or less what "still" means, but it is not crucial
> for me that it really be the exact meaning of English "still",
> it is just a handy keyword.

For me as a native speaker, "still" sometimes but not always carries the
expectation that the event should no longer be happening. Examples:
A. Is he still talking? I wish he'd shut up. (expectation)


B. Am I too late to get the special price? No, the sale is still
going on. (no expectation)

> 2- An event is not happening yet even though it should


> already be happening. I use the tags "still not" and "not yet"

> for this situation, again with the same caveats...

A. Did the package come today? No, it has still not been
delivered. (Expectation)
B. Am I late? No, the class has not yet started. (No expectation -- in
contrast with B above.)

> 3- An event happening that should not yet have started.
> I tag this situation with "already", whether or not that
> is the meaning of the English word.

A. The bastards left without me! They should have waited. (expectation,


but I wouldn't use "already".)

B. I should have gotten up on time; the class has already started.
(no expectation)

> 4- An event not happening that should still be happening.
> I tag this one as "no longer",...

A. She no longer loves me, alas. (Expectation.)


B. When will the green bus come? Never; they are no longer green; they
have all been painted red. (The speaker doesn't expect that the
event should still be happening, though he might sense that the
listener, the one asking the question, feels that way.)

Perhaps the right conclusion is that in English, "still" / "not yet" /


"already" / "no longer" really are pretty pure event contour tags, and the
expectation that the event "should" be happening or not, is carried through
separate cues, which in English are often not explicit words but more in
the nature of context and body language.


James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673
UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555
Internet: ji...@math.ucla.edu (finger for PGP key)
UUCP:...!{ucsd,ames,ncar,gatech,purdue,rutgers,decvax,uunet}!math.ucla.edu!jimc

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.

http://click.egroups.com/1/6818/4/_/17627/_/963510255/

Ivan A Derzhanski

unread,
Jul 15, 2000, 2:14:08 AM7/15/00
to loj...@egroups.com
And Rosta wrote:
> Xorxes to Ivan:

> > These agree in several properties. For example, {za'o}
> > and {ca'o}, like "still" and "already", show that the event
> > is indeed happening, and "pu'o" and "ba'o", like "not yet"
> > and "no longer", correspond to the not-happening stage.
[...]

> "za'o", however, is "ba'o completion, and ca'o".

Depends on the interpretation of {ca'o}. See below.

> > >Of course it would -- I love symmetry myself -- as long as that can
> > >be matched to some meaning. Trouble is, I don't see how it can.
> >
> > I do. I can think of many events with a natural starting point
> > that doesn't always coincide with the actual starting point.
>
> I think the discrepancy between you & Ivan here is due to you each
> using slightly different analytical frameworks for ZAhO, where Ivan's
> is both the one more standard in linguistics and the one that informed
> the design of ZAhO, though not its exposition in reference material.

Actually, I'd say that mine is also there in the reference material,
though it follows from the data, not the terminology used there.

The book talks of a process continuing `beyond its natural end'
and uses the words `too long' in the translation of ex. (10.10).
This can very well make one wonder: if a process has a natural
end different from the actual one, why not a natural beginning?
and if it can go on for too long (ie ending too late), how about
starting too early?

Now let's look at the example itself, and its exegesis: `went on
explaining after the class already understood the problem'. Aha!
So the so-called natural end is the culmination, the event that
results from the process. You explain and explain --> the audience
understands. You eat --> your tummy becomes full. You put brick
on brick --> a house makes an appearance. You progressively add
salt to water --> the solution becomes saturated. Hence my
interpretation of {za'o}: process continues after its effect
is obtained. Once we replace the debatable expression `natural
end' by the evidently synonymous `effect', the question of a
`natural beginning' becomes moot.

So did we end up with perfect symmetry, with its centre at {mo'u}?
We still may not have done, depending on the meaning of {ca'o}.
While the teacher {za'o ciksi} the problem, does he simultaneously
{ca'o ciksi} it? I prefer to think that he doesn't. Then {ca'o}
and {za'o} are indeed one another's mirrors, and the choice depends
on whether a/the culmination has been reached or not. If he does,
and {ca'o} covers all from {co'a} to {co'u} (as And seems to assume),
then we're missing a ZAhO for the more narrow interpretation of {ca'o}.

--Ivan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
1. Fill in the brief application
2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR

http://click.egroups.com/1/6630/4/_/17627/_/963643656/

Jorge Llambias

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 8:48:06 PM7/6/00
to loj...@egroups.com

la ivAn cusku di'e
>Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > If we can make a distinction between "event discontinues process"
> > and a "process brings forth event", I don't see why we can't
> > distinguish "event brings forth process" from "process leaves
> > event behind", distinguishing a mere circumstantial start from
> > an actual birth or origination.
>
>But that would involve no causality, merely the coincidence
>of two times (of the event and of the start of the process),
>because a process can't cause something except by having gone
>on for a while, and that is already covered by {mo'u}.

Not physical causality, of course, but what gets called the
origin or initiation may be a consequence of the process
occurring, i.e. we could not talk of there having been a
begining unless the process has been going on for a while.

This is really the only sense in which a process "brings
forth" the culmination event anyway, isn't it?

>Which may imply that {co'a} is {za'o}'s mirror, in the sense


>of being the symmetrically allocated item in the sequence
>{pu'o -- co'a -- ca'o -- mu'o -- za'o -- co'u -- ba'o}.

I suppose you meant {ca'o} as {za'o}'s mirror.

Only if we place the mirror at {mu'o}. But if we placed it
at {ca'o} (I think a more natural placing), we have:

pu'o - co'a - xxx - xxx - ca'o - mu'o - za'o - co'u - ba'o

where the xxx's are the mirror images of {za'o} and {mu'o}.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages