From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Aug 26 09:32:18 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 26 Aug 1993 14:20:44 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 26 Aug 1993 14:20:39 -0400 Message-Id: <199308261820.AA21880@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2923; Thu, 26 Aug 93 14:19:08 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 2285; Thu, 26 Aug 93 13:34:42 EDT Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 13:32:18 EDT Reply-To: Jorge LLambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge LLambias Subject: Re: TECH: QUERY on ZI & ZEhA X-To: snark!cowan@gvls1.vfl.paramax.com X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: la djan cusku di'e > > Actually, the question of what ZAhO+KU means is vexed, and I deliberately > didn't discuss the construction in the tense paper. The difficulty, of > cours, stems from the semantic difference between ZAhO as tense and ZAhO > as sumti tcita. Was there any reason to impose this semantic difference, or does this just come from tradition? > > 4) mi ba'o klama le zarci > > doesn't equate to: > > 5) mi klama le zarci ba'o zo'e > > for any interpretation of "zo'e". So whether > > 6) ba'oku mi klama le zarci > > is equivalent to Example 4 or Example 5 is simply not determined. > I agree that this result is bogus, but it represents where we currently stand. > I supose that: __mi klama za'o le nu snime__ I go as it keeps snowing. and not: *I keep going as it snows. My suggestion would be to modify the sumti tcita semantics of the ZAhO, but I understand that this is a hopeless suggestion, so I won't insist. The explanation about the bug in the BNF clarifies a lot, thanks. I had misunderstood the line that defines tag<491>, and thought that the multiple ZAhOs came from the "..." there, but now I understand. Jorge