Re: tenses

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> I'm not sure what's right and what's wrong. Are there typos in the
> cmaste?

The cmaste says:

>> caba'o         is going to
>> capu'o         has been

But it was meant to say:

>> caba'o         has been
>> capu'o         is going to

This error is a favourite of mine, because I think {pu'o} and {ba'o}
were defined backwards to start with, so this error would fix it.  :)

> A gloss like "has been" seems rather unwise, given the trickiness of
> the meaning of the English perfect.

It is a much better gloss than "present perfective" or some other
such incomprehensible jargon. Of course they are not exactly identical,
since you can almost never achieve that in translating between two
languages, but they are close enough.


> > > I agree iff {puo} modifies the selbri, so that the meaning is
> > > "puo-farlu(le bolci)", and not "farlu(le bloci)" - so that
> > > puo-farlu(b) does not entail farlu(b).
> > That's how I understand it, yes. You can talk of {lo pu'o farlu},
> > which is not a kind of {lo farlu}, so it makes sense.
> And is that how you understand every ZAhO?

Yes, I think so.

> Okay. I think I've misunderstood ZAhO. I thought {coa citka pa plise}
> does mean "this is the start of an event of my eating an apple".

Not in the sense of "there is a complete event of my eating an apple
such that this is its start", in my opinion. Besides, there is no "this"
in the Lojban sentence.

> Again, only if {coa broda} doesn't entail {broda}. I have come round
> to your way of seeing things, & feel that it is better for ZAhO broda
> not to entail broda.

{co'i broda} probably does entail {broda}. {co'i} might even be the
default ZAhO in the absence of another explicit one.

> > > p.s. RE: Chris on {dahi} & {rua}: I agree with everything Kris says,
> > > & retract anything necessary.
> > Was this a post to the whole list? I don't remember reading anything
> > that fits with that.
> Yes. I said that some of Chris's uses of {dahi} should be {rua}, &
> he correctly pointed out that I was mistaken.

I remember reading your post, but not Chris's response. If anyone still
has a copy could they send it to me? Thanks.

> Kris:
> > mi pu cusku:
> > >> mi ponse le la lei'ydan cukta       gi'e milxe      tadni
> > .i la .and. cu troci lenu cikre
> > >                                ^^ku?            ^^se?
> > .i pe'i na go'i .i pe'i na nitcu zo ku .i ku'i na birti
> gohi rao

i ju'o zo ku na se nitcu

> > .i zo se cu na drani --> that would mean "I have the lojban book
> > and am somewhat studied"
> I thought it would mean "I have the Laadan book and mild studyee".
> At present is seems to mean "I have the Laadan book and mild student".

No, Chris is right. In {broda le brode gi'e brodi}, {gi'e} connects
{broda le brode} with {brodi}, not {brode} with {brodi}.

To connect {brode} with {brodi} the right connector is {je}:
{broda le brode je brodi}.

> > >fi ri juosai       ro gerna le jbogerna cu mleca
> >               ^^fa?
> NO!!? Are you telling me that use of FA affects the x-numbering
> of subsequent suivla? So without that added {fa} it's as if there
> were a {fo} there? No! Mercy!

I think {fa} is not needed, but I'm not sure.

Jorge