Re: TECH: QUERY on ZI & ZEhA

[Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

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.

Exactly.

>
> 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
>

Jorge