Re: sera'aku GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>Is that an official position? Last time I asked nobody knew how to take
>a sumti tagged by {puba'o}, for example. Is it governed by {pu} or by {ba'o}?
>(Since the rules for those two are utterly different, the two choices give
>drastically different meanings.) From what you say here, I take it that
>it is governed by {pu}, is that right?

I personally have never tried to state the rules.  Perhaps Cowan has in
the refgrammar.  I just know that given a sentence with puba'o I WILL
come up with an interpretation, as I will for most grammatical Lojban.
I am not so stuck on my opinions as to call my interpretation "official" just
because it comes from the mouth/keyboard of Lojbab.  But there are some
interpretations I cannot get, and puza with za governing is one of them.

In other words give me a sentence and I will make a ruling based on MY
instincts, but whether it is "official" I won't say.

>My interpretation has always been the one given by Don, by the way.
>I interpret {pu <sumti> za <sumti>} the same as {puza} as a selbri
>tcita, only with added precision in the origin and the size of the shift.

That is a possible interpretation, but it also has never been official,
and I have never contemplated the possible idiosyncrasies that order
might cause.  I would have thoughtt that {pu <sumti> za <sumti>}
meant the same as {za <sumti> pu <sumti>} without thinking about whether
"puza" means the same as "zapu"  I am NOT a big fan of transformational
Lojban - saying that two different grammatical structures are semantically
equal - this should be clear by my unwilingness anymore to see "re broda"
be locked into "re lo broda" with no implication of specificity, definiteness
while having veridicality.  I just don;t see the naturalistic form as
implying much of anything about logical properties.

We also have "naku" which is NOT the same as "na" necessarily, and does have
order considerations.  We have had some discussions, but I can;t remember
to what decision, about whether a  "pu le broda" as a sumti before the
a selbri that is explicitly tensed means the same as one that is after, but
I cannot remeber which - i.e. Is "mi pu broda" the same as puku mi broda
or mi puku broda, where there may or may not be a difference if a tense is
umm tensed sumti, is attached before or after the puku.

In other words, there is a lot of stuff we haven;t talked about, which may or
may not be in Imaginary JOurneys, probably SHOULD be if we can reach and
agreement, but we may or may not have the time to fully analyze the issues.

lojbab