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

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

coi doi goran

> .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 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 .uaro'e ma krasi ra

i mi na djuno  i mi smadi tu'a lo jdini nu jajgau  i la'a seva'u
lo jdakagni (to xu do nelci zo jdakagni no'u zoi gy Church gy toi)

......

> > > 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.

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


> > 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.

> Distance is inherent in the VA/ZA class word itself: near, medium, far.

Right, but what about more precise magnitudes?

> 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)?

> 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?

> 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?)

What is the difference between {ze'a}, {ze'i} and {ze'u} as sumti tcita?
It's the same subjective estimation. I would say that what is redundant
is having two ways to indicate the origin (PU, ZI) while leaving none
to indicate the magnitude.

> 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.

> > 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?

Of course. What I meant was that the only use that the VA have seen as sumti
tcita until now is mostly wrong anyway by the present theory.

> > > 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?

Jorge