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


la kolin cusku di'e
> la xorxes retspuda fi la djan fe di'e

zo'o mi zukte fi le nu retspuda ba'e fe la djan ba'e fi di'e

I suppose:

retspuda   s1=p3  s2=p4  s3=p1  p2

> +++++++++++++++++>
> >  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
> and
> I was happy in the aftermath of eating
> and it seems to be sensible to make them the same word.

And you could still use the same word:

        mi gleki ca le nu ba'o citka

> 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"

I think it would be more like:

  "I was in the aftermath of being happy as I ate."

Actually, the past has nothing to do here, it could be

  "I'm in the aftermath of being happy as I eat."

> But this is not a form of expression which I have ever felt the
> need for.

Even if that is true, there are many grammatical expressions which
will probably never be needed. Is this a reason to give them a
more useful meaning, by introducing a special interpretation rule?

> (Note it is not the same as "I was happy in the
> prelude to my eating")

No, that would be:

mi pu gleki ca le nu pu'o citka

>         Colin