Re: A modest proposal re: tenses

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

> It seems to me that a tense like {zu'avi} expresses a relationship between
> three things: an area x1 to the left of the reference point x2, a distance
> x3 (which should be small), and maybe a direction x4 (if you want to be
> more precise about "to the left").

I'm not sure I see what you mean by x4. You mean where to face to determine
what is "left"?

> There ought to be a way to express
> this relationship succintly as a selbri;

The gismu {zunle} already exists, and most if not all FAhAs have a
corresponding gismu. It doesn't have a place for the distance, though.

> something like what {moi} and its
> relatives do for numbers.  Why not add another cmavo (with its own
> selma'o) to serve this purpose?

That sounds like a good idea, but it seems too radical.  Given that
there are already gismu that do that.  I like it, though.  It goes well
with the idea of letting all words function as any part of speech.

> (In this message, I'll arbitrarily use
> {xoi}, as the only unassigned <C>oi cmavo left.)

All xVV and xV'V cmavo were left unassigned precisely for this purpose,
to try out new ideas.  But if the cmavo is adopted, it would be as a
real one, which would have to be of CV'V form, since only of those are
there any left.

> This would serve at least two purposes:
>
> a) It would allow more complicated tenses, expressing a specific distance
> and/or reference point (using di'o: {di'o lo be'avixoi be le ginka bei
> cimitre}

Nice. I wonder what's the difference between {bu'u} and {di'o}.

Now you can say {di'o lo berti be le ginka}, but expressing the distance
would be harder.

> b) It would allow you to succintly say something like "the area around
> the oven", as I was wondering about:
>
>         litru lo ru'uxoi be le toknu

You can say {litru lo sruri be le toknu}.


> (I still think the use of {litru} is appropriate here; I don't think
> {litru} should carry the connotations of "long distance" that English
> "travel" has.

I agree, that's why I think the keywords are sometimes a bad idea.
I have to make an effort to not let "travel" interfere.


> You could also precisely specify a location in reference to your current
> position (the default x2 should be the current place, {lo cabu'u
> zvacab}):

zvacabna

>         le ri'uxoi be fi remitre
>
> or "two meters to my left".

I think I like it, it would save us form having to learn two words for
every direction: ri'u, pritu, zu'a, zunle, be'a, berti, etc.
On the other hand, it would be a considerable change, so I don't know.


> NOTES:
> 1) Of course, the same construction works for time or mixed tenses as
> well.
>
> 2) But motion tenses don't seem to fit in quite as nicely, though perhaps
> they still have meaning.

Also it's not so clear what it would mean with ZEhAs, ZAhEs, etc.
Only for PUs and FAhAs it is clear.

> 3) Some of the same holes could be plugged with another cmavo of selma'o
> NU, a "position abstract"; then you could say, for instance, "the area
> around the oven" with {sruri}, and perhaps using {mitre} in other cases.
> {zvati} doesn't have enough places to be useful here.  (Naturally, we'd
> need to resolve the {li'i} question first.)

I'm not sure I understand this point. {le sruri be le toknu} works
as is for "the area around the oven". {le sruri} doesn't need to be
a material object.


> 4) I still see problems saying something like "two feet north and
> five feet west".

You could say:

 di'o lo be'axoi be fi lei re gutci be'o je vu'axoi be fi lei mu gutci

but I will stick with:

 be'aku va lei re gutci vu'aku va lei mu gutci


> co'o mi'e. dilyn.

co'o mi'e xorxes