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


la djan cusku di'e
> Actually, the question of what ZAhO+KU means is vexed, and I deliberately
> didn't discuss the construction in the tense paper.  The difficulty, of
> cours, stems from the semantic difference between ZAhO as tense and ZAhO
> as sumti tcita.

Was there any reason to impose this semantic difference, or does this just
come from tradition?

> 4)      mi ba'o klama le zarci
> doesn't equate to:
> 5)      mi klama le zarci ba'o zo'e
> for any interpretation of "zo'e".  So whether
> 6)      ba'oku mi klama le zarci
> is equivalent to Example 4 or Example 5 is simply not determined.
> I agree that this result is bogus, but it represents where we currently stand.

I supose that:

        __mi klama za'o le nu snime__
          I go as it keeps snowing.

and not: *I keep going as it snows.

My suggestion would be to modify the sumti tcita semantics of the ZAhO, but
I understand that this is a hopeless suggestion, so I won't insist.

The explanation about the bug in the BNF clarifies a lot, thanks.
I had misunderstood the line that defines tag<491>, and thought that the
ZAhOs came from the "..." there, but now I understand.