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


la xorxes retspuda fi la djan fe di'e

>  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?

The difference has always seemed natural to me.
I want to be able to say

I am in the aftermath of eating


I was happy in the aftermath of eating

and it seems to be sensible to make them the same word.

Because one is a predication and the other a modification, the
structures turn out different:

mi ba'o citka
mi gleki ba'o le nu citka

and analysing these you see that the two ba'o's are in some way
complementary rather than synonymous.

To try to give the sumti tcita 'the same meaning' as the selbri tcita
would make

mi gleki ba'o le nu citka

something like

"I was happy and this had as its aftermath my eating"
But this is not a form of expression which I have ever felt the
need for. (Note it is not the same as "I was happy in the
prelude to my eating")