Re: Tense and Aspect (was Re: Wow!...) Rob Zook Tue, 09 Dec 1997 16:09:11 -0600 At 01:07 PM 12/9/97 -0600, Saul wrote: >From: Rob Zook >Date: Tuesday, December 09, 1997 11:08 AM > >>Well, I just finished reveiwing the tense aspect system for Lojban >>and now I'm really disappointed in the Vulcan system. More >>so since I'm not sure what we should do about it. I still have a >>feeling it's more a lack of completeness than anything. However, now >>I tend to agree with you that I don't like combining tense, aspect >>and mode together with one infix for one particular meaning. > >What is amusing, and for which the professor deserves additional >respect, is that mixed systems are entirely natural. Well, I know for formal mode I personally would prefer a more exacting tense system. However, retaining some elements which would occur in a natural language seems perfectly alright. In fact, that fails in line with my idea that the language would get re-constructed after the reformation, thus having characteristics of both natural and constructed languages. >>We do have one comparitive grammer structure: equals. I tried to use the >>"distort" and "pleasure" as descriptions to use the X Y comparative order >>grammer. X Y means X = Y. > >It may be more accurate to say "X Y" means "X relates to Y," with the >relationship depending somehow on context. Because it can also mean "Y of >X." Well, the only two examples of this I saw in the Lexicon were: Equotional sentences are expressed by simple juxtaposition in a certain syntactic order: X Y , where X= old information, Y = new information. Thus 'Spock is tall' is literally 'Spock tall' and 'Spock is commander' is 'Spock (X) - commander (Y). and then possibly in the last line of thepoem at the: kahs'khiori th'thya." (shooting star self) Where does it say that it also means "Y of X"? >>Now about the accusitive case, I'm not sure >>that's neccessary here. My knowledge of has deteriated a bit on the >>details so maybe if you explained a little on how this case works >>in English I could see it. > >Giving examples of cases in English is difficult because our inflexion is >severely deteriorated. It's most obvious with pronouns though: I think I see what you're getting at. >>The rest of your revision I think I accept as at least the best >>we can do now. Except that you left out the future tense which could >>translate as the "then" in this case. So I would say then: >> >>va'numkaa s'at cta'e; kalv,djunama s'at deeluha > >I think that works. The permissive can be sort of timeless, so adding a >future just means "you will be able to" in the future, rather than "you >are able to" in general. And we should probably both prefix s' to the >verb in the second clause. >But do you see that, by not marking "cta'e," your sentence begins with >the speaker ordering some second person's facts to find something, >without ever saying what? Well, I did not at first because I thought that V+S+O meant simply word order. If I rearrainged what I said: va'numkaa s'at cta'e, to cta'e s'at va'numkaa it still looks like "facts yours find", in which the verb subject and object all still the same. So I'm still not quite sure, but I'm willing to accept your word on it until I understand it better, so: va'num-kaa s'at cta'-e.-hi; find-! you-possessive fact-plural-accusitive; s'-kalv.-dju-na-ma s'at deelu-ha you-distort1-future-distort2-permissive you-possessive please-dative "Find your facts; then distory as you please" Not exactly the quote but much closer. Rob Z. -------------------------------------------------------- Tis an old maxim in the schools, That flattery 's the food of fools; Yet now and then your men of wit Will condescend to take a bit. --- Johnathon Swift, Cadenus and Vanessa.