WikiDiscuss

Miscellany from this week�s discussion

<<how could anything be more "mo'u" than finding

something one was searching for? Doesn't seem like "co'u" at all to me.>>

Searching (and, I think, lo nu sisku) is an activity, not a process, so it does not strictly have a natural ending point, the completion of the process.
Finding, on the other hand, is an achievement and so has only an ending � is a point-event.
On the other hand, seeking does have a natural ending in the {za�o} sense � a point after which continuing to search is inappropriate � namely finding.
So, there is a sense in which {mo�u sisku} just is �find� (which does not properly have a continuative or an initiative or an inchoative, though it can have these metaphorically, especially of searches that are pretty sure to succeed).

The {mo�u}-{co�u} contrast brings up another point. For processes, I assume that the contrast is (probably implicitly � Grice and all) between finishing the job and stopping with the job undone and no intention of going on with it.

The latter is close to another potential aspect, which, if explicit, could be used for activities as well: stopping too soon (parallel to {za�o}, going on too long/far).
And that raises the issue � raised later in the week � of the mirrors of these, starting too soon or too late, for one of which {xa�o} has been proposed and challenged.
So far as I can find, no language has in its aaspect system � indeed, systematically at all � any of the three suggested additions.
This is not, of course a reason for Lojban not to have them and the obvious symmetries involved (which match those in the rest of the aspects, more or less) argue for them.
Strictly, only one more item is needed, either �begins too soon� or �ends too soon� as the other can be dealt with
by negating the predicate behind the aspect �p ends too soon� is just �not-p begins too soon� and conversely. �begins too late� can already be handled by �not-p goes on too long.�
The problem with this is that �too long� etc. as defined (implicitly) in terms of some time or event that is obvioulsy associated with the event said to be too whatever.
And the event which has the boundart is rarely the negative one � except indirectly from the positive one it bounds.
In short, if we are to expand the aspect system to cover other �off the right time� aspects along with the superfective,
we probably ought to put the lot in separately, not work out idioms for some.
I am � thanks to a native language bias perhaps � not convinced we need any of them beyond superfective (and that is open to challenge � does it get used?).

<<"To make things worse" is an added piece of information; ja'e is a

causative.>>

Not really, resultative — with no indication of what kind of result: it can apparently be used for conclusions as well as effects, for example. �As a worse result� or some such for {ja�e lo xlamau}.

<< pu'o alone doesn't say "on the verge of" to me. "pu'o zi",

perhaps?>>

To be sure, {pu�o} doesn�t have a metric (no aspect does) but surely by the time that anything is clearly going to happen, it is OK to say �on the verge of happening� Of course, it apprently did not happen, but that is the ongoing problem with {pu�o} � and �started too soon� as well � the event may never start at all, perhaps even because someone jumped the gun.

<<To me, "kept" in both places seems to be pretty clearly "ru'i" and not

"za'o". What event is being surpassed? The event of us wanting them

to be broken?>>

The event (probably repeated) of fixing the critter. I don�t think wanting them broken enters in here. Being fixed (or operating correctly) is the natural ending of somethiing being broken. And indeed, the break-downs seem to be repeated not continuous nor continual.

<<mi tolji'a lo samci'e nunkei pu'o lo nu mi cpacu lo norji'a pinka

I was about to lose a network game, when I got a Tiebreaker notice.

That just doesn't work. By the convention you are using, the Lojban

says "I lose/lost a network game, and before that I got a Tiebreaker

notice". In contrast, the English implies that the game was not in fact

lost, due to the interruption. You need some kind of indication of

counterfactuality on the main bridi, or something.>>

It is examples like this that make sense of the alternate (original?) convention, which puts the inchoate event (the aspect space defining event) in the subordinate clause. Or the English may just not be right here but rather for {mi po�u tolji�a lo samce�I nunkei ca lo nu mi cpaculo norji�a pinka} (or some such) while the text should be read as �I lost the network game when I was about to get a Tiebreaker notice.� Getting the intuitions all in a row on this (but that may not be possible) is a large part of why I keep thinking that aspect is not so nearly done.

<<za'o is not really about starting or ending, it is not a change of

state

point like co'a/co'u/mo'u/di'a but about an aspectual region, like

ca'o.

We have:

region 1 | expected start | region 2 |expected end | region 3

ca'o says the event occurs in region 2.

za'o says the event occurs in region 3.

xa'o says the event occurs in region 1.

To refer to the actual points of early/late start and early/late

end is a different issue. (Not too sure how to do them right now.)>>

Nice point and basically right.
So the �too soon� is not about the start but about the doing � running down the track before the gun goes off, not about jumping the gun (note that {za�o} is appropriate even if the person has not yet stopped, so long as the proper stopping time is past).
Viewed in this light, the �keeps on not p-ing� for �starts too late� (or so)actually makes good sense, since that is what does fill that space. It also reduces the usefulness of the whole array of additions, I think.
And then perhaps �going on to soon� is just �going on in the inchoative or everyone else going on� (but probably not: nor is premature stopping just stopping when everyone else is continuating).
I think our intuitions just are going to be in constant conflict with themselves in all this.
I can see not point in the forms for actual off-time starts and stops: the usefuless is probaby of a frequency appropriate to modal predicate with event object.

<<I'm not entirely against adding a new cmavo to fill a perceived gap.

But assigning such a cmavo to the xVV series essentially overturns the

age-old rule that says that that series should be perpetually reserved

for experimental cmavo. I don't think we should do that lightly.

For that reason only, I'm voting against this for the moment. It might

be a good idea to consider either a) taking one of the precious few

unsassigned "main namespace" cmavo forms for it, or b) abandoning the

"already" aspect altogether.>>

I don�t see how this violates the notion that xVV is for experimental usage. Surely, if that usage becomes standard then the word has ipso facto ceased to be experimental. It would be just silly to say �Hey this xVV word really fills a need so lets change it to something else.� This would involve both relearning and unlearning, neither things that Lojbanners do well. But, more to the point, {xa�o} is experimental at this point, even if it is being put into some list. So far as I can find, it has not been used except by xorxes and that not much. And, as I said above, I am not at all sure there is sufficient reason to add these critters anyhow.

<<Is {mu'ei} still used? I thought the "discovery" of {ka'e <sumti>} made

it unnecessary (and also has the advantage of not having the silly

quantifier on it).>>

I take it that what was discovered about {ka�e}(I can�t find the references involved) was that it was the wrong form in the wrong category. �Is innately capable of� hasn�t been a real modal (like �It is possible that�) for a couple centuries and even when it was it was predicative, not ancillary. That is, what {ka�e} used officially to mean was correctly handled by {kakne}, freeing {ka�e} for the real modal possibility. The {mu�ei} world stuff is one standard interpretation of that and has uses as well for other things � the ever problematic contrary-to-facts, for example. So both have roles to play.

<<ka'e} is {su'omu'ei}. The most useful {mu'ei}, the one that can be

used for if...then... constructions, is {romu'ei}, which does not

have a KAhE equivalent.>>

Useful for nomic if-thens but not for counterfactuals. The absence of a logical �It is necessary that� is a more serious flaw in Lojban than all the conceivable aspects put together.

<<But what about {ca'a <sumti>}? If that still means "in this world",

it's

pretty useless. But it seems to me to be kind of like a space tense:

{viku} means "here/very nearby", while {vi le tricu} means "at/near the

tree".>>

I assume that {ca�a} with a sumti means �in the world(s)where the referent of that sumti is (as with all the other sumti tcita � except maybe some tense-aspects). (The list I have mixes it up with {ca�o} as though it were an aspect, �ongoing event� — maybe even {ca ca�o}.)

pc