[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [long] Re: On the tense system

la djan. cusku di'e

> > You say "pu'o is the time before the event"
> >
> > I think this means "a point in time before the event", where the point
> > can be taken as a co'i type of point, but it doesn't mean
> > "all of time, from time immemorial, to the begining of the event"
> > The same goes for the other two.
> On the contrary.  It does in principle mean "all of time to the beginning
> of the event", because pu'o/ca'o/ba'o represent spans of time, not points
> of time.

What do you mean "in principle"? In the examples I've seen it refers
to a point in time or to an event's duration taken as a point.

Does {mi pu'o klama} mean that I am at one point in time before the
beginning of my going, or not? how do I fit the "all time"?

In all this tenses there are always two times involved: The event's time
and the reference time (usually the speaker's). What I understood is that
the ZAhO indicate a span of time with respect to a point in time (this
last one is not literally a point but can be a span taken as a point, in
the same way as co'i). Is this wrong? Examples if possible, please!!!

> > In your picture, you write the word at the place of the reference point,
> > and use the same graph to show the three tenses. I prefer to separate
> > them because some parts of the graph are irrelevant to some tenses, eg
> > the end of the event is irrelevant to pu'o, the beginning is irrelevant
> > to ba'o, and both boundaries are irrelevant to ca'o.
> Both boundaries are relevant, not irrelevant, to "ca'o"; they are precisely
> the boundaries of that span.

{mi ca'o klama} then means:

"I started going a while ago, I am still going, and I will cease in another

{mi pu'o damba} then means:

"I'm on the verge of fighting and after a while of fighting I will cease."


> > 2) the semantics of the ZAhO as sumti tcita is unnecessarily different
> > from that of the rest of the tenses. This I think is important, and this
> > is the cause of the switched ba'o and pu'o.
> You will perhaps notice the version number on the published tense paper,
> namely 3.11.  One reason for this value is that I tried many times to make
> ZAhO consistent with the rest of the paper.  I could not; usage had already
> settled several points, consistently or inconsistently.  I hold consistency
> to be a virtue, but not the only virtue; sometimes usage wins.  (In the
> end, usage always wins, and we are very close to the end now.)

I wish I had gotten this answer before I tried to look for consistency in
something that is not consistent. Of course I can't argue with "that's the
way it is".

Then the way to inerpret the ZAhO sumti tcita is:

ZAhO le nu broda  <===>  ca le nu ZAhO broda

Is this right? If it is, then I will never use the first form, which
is inconsistent with the rest of the system of tenses.