From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Fri Aug 27 14:02:16 1993
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 27 Aug 1993 18:04:57 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 27 Aug 1993 18:04:52 -0400
Message-Id: <199308272204.AA00934@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0629; Fri, 27 Aug 93 18:03:25 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 1766; Fri, 27 Aug 93 18:04:52 EDT
Date:         Fri, 27 Aug 1993 18:02:16 EDT
Reply-To: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
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 <rauch>
Status: O
X-Status: 

la djan cusku di'e
>
> la xorxes. cusku di'e
>
> > I think:
> >       zo'e broda ZAhO le nu brode = ca le nu brode ku zo'e ZAhO broda
>
> The trouble with this equivalence is that "ca" is aorist, so doesn't get
> the right effect.  If we say that one event is simultaneous with the
> aftermath of another, we do >not< exclude that they might overlap, because
> the first event might have started before the second event ended.

I'm aware of this, but I don't understand why this is a problem. Why is the
"right effect" that the event inside the sumti should acquire a contour from
the ZAhO tag? To me it seems strange that the ZAhO should give a contour to
two events. To get this effect, I would use two ZAhOs. And also, it is more
or less clear what the two contours would be for "ca'o", "ba'o" and "pu'o",
but what about the rest? What does it mean that they overlap or not when,
for instance, using "za'o". What is the "right effect" in this case?

        mi klama za'o le nu carvi

would be
        ca le nu carvi ku mi za'o klama

That is, my keeping going occurs at the time of the raining, no matter
when it started to rain. If we want to be more precise

        mi klama za'o le nu co'a carvi

would be
        ca le nu co'a carvi ku mi za'o klama

In this case, I keep going at the time when it starts to rain.

Under the current interpretation,

        mi klama za'o le nu carvi

means that I go as it keeps raining for too long, but it is not clear how
my going is related to the persistent rain. Is my going occuring only in the
"for too long" period of the rain? Very strange.

>
> To solve this problem, we must change your "ca" to "ca'o" which is obviously
> circular.

First we have to agree that it's a problem.


Jorge