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

[Goran Topic <topic@math.hr>]

coi. xorxes.

> > .i pe'i .iku'i drata falo jboklu lo sampliklu vau pe'ipei
>
> i drata  i ku'i le'i go'i ku ku'a le'i se go'i na du le gunti

.i gunti ki'a

> i da kampu le'i re de (to oi mi xebni le nu pilno loi lojyselcmi toi)
>
> > .i le bi'unai selsku na pe'i ckini loi skami
>
> i na ckini loi skami  i ku'i loi skami pilno cu mutce pilno ra
> ku'u la internet bau so'i na'ebo la gliban

.i .e'ucu'i .i mi co'a claxu loi krinu to pau ja xelciksi toi

> lo jdakagni (to xu do nelci zo jdakagni no'u zoi gy Church gy toi)

.i i'ecai.oinairo'e.io
.i mi tcenei zo jdakagni goi ko'i pu'o tcidu le do preti
.i mi lausku lu ba'e tcexau valsi cai li'u

> ......
>
> > > > 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.
> > What does {ki <sumti>} mean, anyway? I have never encountered
> > such a construction, and I couldn't find anything about it in
> > tense paper.
>
> and lojbab had a similar reaction:
>
> > I have NO idea what that "ki" is supposed to mean.
>
> Is it really so weird? I thought it was more or less evident.
> Given that {ki} marks the origin, all I meant was that {le ckule}
> was the origin.

It ba'e marks the origin. It takes the origin as stated by another
tense marker and makes it ba'e stick. That's why it's called sticky
tense marker, or tense default marker.

> What does {ki le ckule} mean, then? Or is that another of those
> meaningless constructions that And likes so much?  :)

I don't know. Parser does accept it, I admit, ku'i.aicu'i it doesn't
feel too gramatical... Tense paper describes {ki} as a 'suffix' to
be added o tenses. If it is grammatical, I guess it's semantic garbage,
at least right now. Somebody in mood for making up more new meanings
to existing cmavo zo'o?

> > > 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.
>
> I think you are using "offset" to mean what I mean by "origin". To me,
> the offset is the distance, i.e. the vector, with its direction and
> magnitude.
>
> For time, PU gives the direction and ZI the magnitude.
> For space, FAhA gives the direction and VA the magnitude.

Yes. You stated my thoughts, only the terms are different.

> > Distance is inherent in the VA/ZA class word itself: near, medium, far.
>
> Right, but what about more precise magnitudes?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. More precise magnitudes is ba'e not
what VA/ZA were made for. That's why I came up with {xe'i}, because there
is no existing mechanism for expressing precise distance.

> > The offset is where the sumti comes in.
>
> This is how things are defined, but there is no external rule that
> says that it has to be so. Given that the origin has already got to
> be specified for the direction (PU, FAhA), why specify it again for
> the magnitude (ZI, VA)?

This is a point. But I still don't think ZI/VA classes are not useful
as they are. Tell me, which FAhA would you use for 'somewhere around
the school, not too far' which is what {va le ckule} conveys?

> > The problem is, VA/ZA is much
> > more specific in the offset part than distance part.
>
> They don't say anything about the origin by themselves, what do you
> mean by specific?

Of course they do. {va le ckule} means (not very specific) medium
distance from (very specific origin which is) the school.

> > 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.
>
> I understand what you mean by {xe'i}, and I am in favour of it
> if ZI and VA can't do the job, but I'd much prefer to use what we
> already have.

What we already have does not do the job. We have two options:
1) make new, completely different definitions for existing cmavo
2) make new cmavo
Things staying as they are is not an option here (except if you
are referring to the old {lo nanca belisu'o cu temci da de}).
I think making a new cmavo is lesser evil.

> > > > 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
>
> I think both are acceptable, since {lo mitre be li pire} is something
> of length .2 meters, in this case the wall, or simply the space filled
> by the wall. Are you sure you don't like it?

Oh. Right. I forgot about the .2 meter ba'e object interpretation. You
are ju'o correct. I am now definitely rocked in my not liking it zo'o.

> Jorge

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