[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TECH: QUERY on ZI & ZEhA
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.