Re: ago (LONG and la'a incorrect :))

[Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>]

coi doi xorxes.

> i mi djica le nu la lojban mutce zmadu se pilno

.i .ie.a'o.au ly. co'a mutce zmadu se pilno

> > .i lu da dunda lei da re fepni sera'a de li'u ba'e je'a tcegliklu
>
> i ie go'i  i ku'i cafne fa le nu se pilno bau na'ebo la giban va'o
> le samymu'e  i pe'i binxo lo samymu'eklu selsku  i le lojbo selmriste
> cu pagbu le samymu'e pe'ipei?

.i pe'i .iku'i drata falo jboklu lo sampliklu vau pe'ipei
.i le bi'unai selsku na pe'i ckini loi skami
.i .uaro'e ma krasi ra

......

> On the question of "ago"/"from now"/"away":
>
> > Yes. But I don't think the present is not useful. Especially the
> > spatial equivalent, VI series. Don't tell me you claim never to need
> > something like {ko'a kelci va le ckule}?
>
> That would be {ko'a kelci ki le ckule vaku} or simply {ko'a va kelci
> ki le ckule} or even {ko'a va kelci to'o le ckule}.

Sorry, but I can't parse 1st and 2nd. 3rd is
'They play <departing from/directly away from> school', according
to cmavo list... I don't think that carries the intention
('They are playing somewhere around the school').
What does {ki <sumti>} mean, anyway? I have never encountered
such a construction, and I couldn't find anything about it in
tense paper.

> The selmahos VA and ZI represent magnitudes, and their natural complements
> are magnitude specifiers. I don't see why they should do double duty for
> something that can be better said with members of PU and FAhA.

There are two things to expressing this concept: offset and distance.
Distance is inherent in the VA/ZA class word itself: near, medium, far.
The offset is where the sumti comes in. The problem is, VA/ZA is much
more specific in the offset part than distance part. If sumti after
VA/ZA were to specify distance, there would be two almost redundant
words in the language. (What would be the difference between {vi le
ckule} and {vu le ckule} except maybe the subjective estimation of the
distance, which can be said in other more conventional ways?) There is
no way now to express the distance other than vaguely, in i/a/o cate-
gories(sp?). {xe'i}, as described, does not express the offset at all,
depending on it being already expressed in some of the other construc-
tions, but gives complete mastery over specifying the distance.

> Another thing is that {vi} is used a lot instead of {bu'u} to mean "at"
> or "in" (at least I have used it like that), and I think that's wrong, too.

Yes it is. But: 'misused' does NOT (IMHO) necessitate 'not useful'. pe'ipei?

> I think that the best thing is to replace {xe'i} with {za} or {va} in
> your examples. The meddling would be only with the theory, because
> these words have seen very little actual use as sumti tcita.

Don't know. Maybe. I stated my arguments. .i doi drata do jinvi ma

> > ta'o is there a gismu for distance, like equivalent for {temci}, or is
> > it necessarily {nilda'o} or {da bi'i de mitre di}-like expressions?
>
> How about {tersei}?

Don't think so...
.i lo jupku'a lo sipku'a sepli lo bitmu .enai lo mitre be li pire

co'o mi'e. goran.

--
Learn languages! The more langs you know, the more incomprehensible you can get
e'udoCILreleiBANgu.izo'ozo'onairoBANguteDJUnobedocubanRI'a.ailekadonaka'eSELjmi