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

Re: Still a few thoughts about ZAhOs

la veion. cusku di'e

> A bridi like
>          da ZAhO broda de di
> syntactically represents a relation between the sumti da, de and di.
> This bridi also contains an implicit reference to the event contour
> of the event corresponding to the underlying simple bridi "da broda
> de di". The temporal aspect of this reference can be folded out of
> the bridi into an additional sumti using the ZAhO as sumti tcita.
> This gives us (approximately, ignoring perhaps some finer points
> relating to the ZAhO in question)
>          da *ZAhO_broda de di ZAhO le nu da broda de di
> e.g.
>          da ba'o klama de di
>      =>  da *ba'o_klama de di ba'o le nu da klama de di
> where "*ba'o_klama" very clearly cannot equal "klama" as the relation
> between da, de and di IS NOT "da klama de di" anymore in the AFTERMATH
> of the coming -- da is already at de, not coming to de anymore.

I believe that most of your thoughts on ZAhOs are entirely sound.
However, I cannot agree with the above conclusions, because of the
lack of tense on "le nu da klama de di".

You treat "da klama de di" as if it meant "da caca'oca'a klama de di", but
IT DOES NOT.  It is open as to tense proper, aspect, and actuality.
So "ba'o_klama" is not a different relationship from "klama" proper, but
simply a subtype of it: it is klama seen from the aftermath perspective.

We are prone to believe that "caca'oca'a", that which is actually continuing
now, is the most important part of the event, and can always be assumed as
the default, but it cannot.  "klama" is a most expansive relation, and
just as well associates the coming of Paul to Damascus, an event which
long ago entered its "ba'o" stage, as my going home tonight, which is
hardly even in its "pu'o" stage yet.

John Cowan      cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.