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

Re: ZAhO as sumti tcita

la djan cusku di'e
> So in general, ZAhO as sumti tcita says that the event of the main bridi,
> considered as a point-event, represents (part of) a phase of the process
> specified by the sumti, and which phase is determined by which ZAhO it is.

This is more or less what I had understood from the tense paper. It still
seems strange to me that the ZAhO is applied to the event inside the sumti,
instead of to the main bridi.

Which rule do we use for PU ZAhO sumti tcita? The one for PU, the one for
ZAhO, or a combination of both?

        ___mi klama pu za'o le nu carvi___

1- I kept going before the rain.

This is what I think it should mean, but it doesn't.

2- I went as it kept raining.

This is what it would mean (I think) if we apply the ZAhO rule to the

3- My going occured in the past of the persistent rain.

This (or something like it) would be using the PU rule for the "pu" and
the ZAhO rule for the "za'o". In this case, PU ZAhO as a tense has a
completely different meaning from PU ZAhO as sumti tcita.

Which one is the right interpretation?