Re: Jorge's text (Was: On the tense system of ZAhO)

[Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>]

Jorge, you said:

>i uunai mi na fanva sebai le nu rodo se nandu le nu jimpe dei
>du'i le nu mi ciska dei

After a little effort I realised you meant
"I'm not translating this so that you have the same difficulty
understanding this as I have writing it"

Unfortunately, that's not what it means.

The problem is that 'na' is a bridi-negator, and 'sebai' is
inside the bridi.
Furthermore (as I said to
Rob) I don't believe ciska is appropriate.

What you've said is:
(non-regret) it is not the case that I
[translate this forcing all you to find it difficult to
 {understand it equally with me inscribing it}]

In order to get the tcita sumti out of the scope of the
bridi nu natfe you need either
1) use na'e, whose scope is the selbri only
or
2) put the bai clause in a separate sentence:
'.i bai bo'

For myself I would use mu'i rather than sebai anyway -
I believe your intent is to explain WHY you're not translating
it, whereas what you' ve said is that you're not translating
it, compelling ....

        Colin