Difference between revisions of ""nau" as sumtcita"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m (Gleki moved page ''nau'' as sumtcita to "nau" as sumtcita)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
+
{{se inspekte/en}}
 
+
* [[And|And Rosta]]:
'''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]]
+
* What does '''nau ko'a broda''' mean?
 
+
* Does it just mean ''temporally or spatially coincident with '''ko'a''', '''broda'''''?
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]].
+
* 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''').
 
+
** [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion:]]
Because on [[CAhA as sumtcita]], Adam takes a different view (of ''nau'' as
+
*** 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 '''ca je bu'u ko'a broda''', and '''ca''' is not '''nau'''. So obviously it should mean that; why would this be controversial?
 
+
**** [[And|And Rosta]]:
sumtcita). If there is no controversey, then so much the better! [[--And]]
+
***** Because on [[CAhA as sumtcita]], Adam takes a different view (of '''nau''' as sumtcita). If there is no controversey, then so much the better!
 
+
****** Oh. I see now. Adam, can you confirm your position in the following?
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 reference point from speaker time to something else. So what would this mean?
So, by And, nau is used as in:
+
******* '''.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 goi la nitcion. pu cliva le merko ca li 2001 nau li 2002''
+
******* '''.i mi ba cliva le merko nau li 2000'''
 
+
******* ''In 2000, I was still going to leave the U.S.''
("I left the States in 2001; this is 2002)
+
****** 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...
 
 
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...
 

Latest revision as of 09:30, 26 March 2015

  • And Rosta:
  • 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).
    • nitcion:
      • 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 ca je bu'u ko'a broda, and ca is not nau. So obviously it should mean that; why would this be controversial?
        • And Rosta:
          • Because on CAhA as sumtcita, Adam takes a different view (of nau as sumtcita). If there is no controversey, then so much the better!
            • 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 reference 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...