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


lojbab says:
> As for ze'eco'a vs co'aze'e:  the intended grammar and semantics of za'o
> is that it is a tense interval modifier.  There is always an implied
> interval to which it implies, and the ZAhO grammatically comes after that
> interval.  We eliminated the 'unspecified interval' cmavo, which used to
> be none other than ze'e and ve'e, so you cannot any longer make the implicit
> explicit.

So the interval that gets modified is not given to the "phase" that we are
looking at, but to the "event proper"? Then "mi ze'u ba'o klama" means that
my long going is over.

Would "mi ba'o ze'u klama" mean that my going is over for a long time?

I thought that the other way around was more intuitive, but I have to think
more about it, to get it clear.

> mi ze'eso'iroize'udi'i klama
> I, over the course of eternity, during many times which were long intervals,
> regularly go.
> If you stuck a "za'o" on the end of that messy tense, it would modify the
> last implied interval, giving
> ... which were long intervals, regularly keep going too long.

I agree with this one.