From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Mar 18 09:05:23 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 1993 04:06:34 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2475; Thu, 18 Mar 93 04:05:25 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6213; Thu, 18 Mar 93 04:06:40 EST Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 09:05:23 GMT Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: TECH: *[SE] ZAhO sumti (RE: basti xa'urjudri) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O Message-ID: A couple of not-quite-recent postings from Colin and jimc registered unhappiness with the current interpretation of ZAhO as sumti vs. selbri tcita. Perhaps we should reconsider my previous tentative suggestion in this light - why not allow the use of SE with tense constructs. We could then define {co'u} and {co'u zo'e} to be interchangeable, both meaning "after the cessation of which ", since we'd have {seco'u ko'a} for the converse connection "after the cessation of x1". (I'm not sure this comes across very well in English, so flex your glorking muscles.) :) This would be principally useful with ZAhO, but the extra flexibility with others such as PU (e.g. preceding x vs. preceded by x) might not go amiss. This would involve changing the meaning of {ZAhO }, which might invalidate a few existing texts, but I suspect not very many. mi'e .i,n.