From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Aug 19 07:10:01 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 19 Aug 1993 15:05:43 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 19 Aug 1993 12:32:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199308191632.AA00210@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4333; Thu, 19 Aug 93 12:30:37 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4031; Thu, 19 Aug 93 12:33:00 EDT Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 11:10:01 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: ZAhO: A view from the sidelines X-To: Lojban List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9308190259.AA28848@relay1.UU.NET> from "Jorge LLambias" at Aug 18, 93 10:56:50 pm Status: O X-Status: la xorxes. cusku di'e > The rules for the semantics of PUs as sumti tcita and ZAhOs as sumti tcita > are unfortunately different. I say unfortunately because there is no > reason that requires this to be so. It's not so simple. As I have said before, the nature of ZAhO is really one-place -- it selects a portion of an event for salience -- and its use as a sumti tcita is only remotely connected with its use as a selbri tense. This is not true for PU/FAhA, which are inherently two-place. The question is not why PU (as sumtcita) and ZAhO (as sumtcita) are inconsistent, but why they should be consistent in the first place. -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.