From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Mar 14 14:24:58 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NqvIt-0002U7-7x for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:24:57 -0700 Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NqvId-0002TH-NJ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:24:49 -0700 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so2809057bwz.26 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:24:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CRiboOhXYKtipUgRQouTs+SDL8vzcNbg3rbvzeeJeuM=; b=uhgzQWf2ZzKPa4bDrXxK45/nwc4uGaKVxmxEEx9kYt+iNKMEAiQJRN3iPDvkc2rNVl kGAovH8imFCqH1L+P3xoODo49+Nvh9UzDREGg2wq/oQMM+G2Y9DyHSiZzAnfh3iGR3Ud DbFXopfM3N9jBqR4Td8kiFJLD9GcfnFeRC/BQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hqv3XzoS4CIMPsMvD80wARkNaWC0dIfygVCtaNws2a6py1M3tD545EtKeBVjmwJeGM YA3i9DlH2lC/F9a5KzDM9UhYFFpKx0W6ebGB5rfYn84YJsiq4ie18SS7Wp5FtV7530dt 1pCS6jE4eGPd1LKwp9qPAtGmz0ypANTmMa65Q= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.49.83 with SMTP id u19mr1618162bkf.157.1268601872735; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:24:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4de8c3931003140915t10c8e8c8t5a2ffdeb9541db82@mail.gmail.com> References: <4de8c3931003140915t10c8e8c8t5a2ffdeb9541db82@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:24:32 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17561003141424u75949419h7fde320f6be3f8a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: PU + ZEhA / ZAhO From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 17236 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:15 PM, tijlan wrote: > How do you analyse/interpret/translate the followings? (Some of them > are not grammatical according to jbofi'e (marked with "!") but are ok > according to some jbopre, if I remember correctly. If you think it > should be ungrammatical, leave it blank.) They are all grammatical. It is a known bug of jbofi'e that it has trouble with some elidable terminators. Insert an explicit "ku" in those that jbofi'e rejects, and it will accept them. >  1. pu ca gunka "ca" doesn't really add much in the presence of another PU. "pu ca" is "before the same time as [the origin]", which is the same as "before [the origin]". The origin is normally the time of the utterance, unless context suggests otherwise. So basically: "worked". >  2. pu ze'a gunka "before [the origin], for a while", "worked for a while". >  3. ze'a ca gunka "for a while, at the same time as [the origin]", "works for a while". According to CLL, the "ca" after ZEhA indicates that it is the center of the while that is at the same time as the origin, which means that if the origin is the present, then the working extends some time to the past and some time to the future. But "ca ze'a gunka" achieves the same thing, so... >  4. ze'a pu ca gunka (!) >  5. pu ze'a ca gunka >  6. pu ca ze'a gunka The "ca" doesn't really add anything to "pu". These are "for a while, before [the origin]" and "before [the origin], for a while". Not much difference, if any, between them: "worked for a while". >  7. pu ca'o gunka "ca'o" puts the focus on the ongoing work, rather than on the event as a totality. It is roughly equivalent to the progressive aspect in English (the BE + ING form) so: "was working". >  8. ca'o ca gunka (!) "is working" >  9. ca'o pu ca gunka (!) >  10. pu ca'o ca gunka (!) >  11. pu ca ca'o gunka These would all be roughly "was working". If the origin is something other than the time of the utterance, then "pu gunka" could be "had worked" or "will have worked" instead of "worked", "pu ca'o gunka" could be "had been working" or "will have been working" instead of "was working", and so on. Don't expect very exact translations without knowing the full context. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.