BPFK gismu Section: Complete vs. Incomplete Specifications: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:


Some gismu say that particular sumti places should be a "complete specification", some say partial or have the key word "including", and most say nothing at all.


'''What does ''nau ko'a broda'' mean? Does it just mean "temporally or spatially coincident with ko'a, broda"? I don't think it should. Rather, pe'i ''ko'a'' should specify the time and place of ''dei'' (e.g. for the benefit of hearers/readers not present at the time and place of ''dei'').''' --[[And]]
Without getting into details at this time, I (rlpowell) propose that:


That's what ''nau'' does as a tense: "the speaker's current reference point", CLL says. "temporally or spatially coincident with ko'a, broda" is identical to ''cabu'e ko'a broda'', and ''ca'' is not ''nau''. So obviously it should mean that; why would this be controversial? --- [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]].
1.  Incomplete specification be explicitely declared at the front of the dictionary as the default.


Because on [[CAhA as sumtcita]], Adam takes a different view (of ''nau'' as
2.  All complete specification places that can reasonably have that specifier removed from them have it so removed.


sumtcita). If there is no controversey, then so much the better! [[--And]]
The reason is that the entire concept of "complete specification" ranges from silly to meaningless. In the vast majority of cases, the user has no way to produce one besides hand-wavy tricks like "joi lo drata". In the few cases where a complete specification is possible, it would almost always destroy conversational fluidity to try to introduce it anyways. If you want po'o or ".e nai lo drata", you know where to find them.
 
Oh. I see now. Adam, can you confirm your position in the following?
 
So, by And, nau is used as in:
 
''.i mi goi la nitcion. pu cliva le merko ca li 2001 nau li 2002''
 
("I left the States in 2001; this is 2002)
 
By Adam, nau resets the ref point from speaker time to something else. So what would this mean?
 
''.i mi goi la nitcion pu cliva le merko ca li 2001 nau li 2002''
 
What would ''nau li 2003'' mean? Or ''nau li 1973''? I mean, it could be shifting the deictic centre, as in:
 
''.i mi ba cliva le merko nau li 2000''
 
"In 2000, I was still going to leave the U.S."
 
But that's pointless: we shift deictic centres using compound tenses, and ''ki'': ''.i caki li 2000, mi ba cliva''. No, I think And's right on this one. Unless Adam cares to expound further...

Revision as of 16:43, 4 November 2013

Some gismu say that particular sumti places should be a "complete specification", some say partial or have the key word "including", and most say nothing at all.

Without getting into details at this time, I (rlpowell) propose that:

1. Incomplete specification be explicitely declared at the front of the dictionary as the default.

2. All complete specification places that can reasonably have that specifier removed from them have it so removed.

The reason is that the entire concept of "complete specification" ranges from silly to meaningless. In the vast majority of cases, the user has no way to produce one besides hand-wavy tricks like "joi lo drata". In the few cases where a complete specification is possible, it would almost always destroy conversational fluidity to try to introduce it anyways. If you want po'o or ".e nai lo drata", you know where to find them.

Retrieved from "https://mw-live.lojban.org/index.php?title=BPFK_gismu_Section:_Complete_vs._Incomplete_Specifications&oldid=74426"