Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 1993 13:53:27 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 1993 13:53:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199308161753.AA14054@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0015; Mon, 16 Aug 93 13:51:57 EDT Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@YALEVM) by YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6717; Mon, 16 Aug 1993 13:48:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 12:18:58 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Still a few thoughts about ZAhOs X-To: Lojban List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9308160851.AA12424@relay1.UU.NET> from "VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi" at Aug 16, 93 04:52:38 am Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Mon Aug 16 08:18:58 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET la veion. cusku di'e > A bridi like > > da ZAhO broda de di > > syntactically represents a relation between the sumti da, de and di. > This bridi also contains an implicit reference to the event contour > of the event corresponding to the underlying simple bridi "da broda > de di". The temporal aspect of this reference can be folded out of > the bridi into an additional sumti using the ZAhO as sumti tcita. > This gives us (approximately, ignoring perhaps some finer points > relating to the ZAhO in question) > > da *ZAhO_broda de di ZAhO le nu da broda de di > > e.g. > > da ba'o klama de di > => da *ba'o_klama de di ba'o le nu da klama de di > > where "*ba'o_klama" very clearly cannot equal "klama" as the relation > between da, de and di IS NOT "da klama de di" anymore in the AFTERMATH > of the coming -- da is already at de, not coming to de anymore. I believe that most of your thoughts on ZAhOs are entirely sound. However, I cannot agree with the above conclusions, because of the lack of tense on "le nu da klama de di". You treat "da klama de di" as if it meant "da caca'oca'a klama de di", but IT DOES NOT. It is open as to tense proper, aspect, and actuality. So "ba'o_klama" is not a different relationship from "klama" proper, but simply a subtype of it: it is klama seen from the aftermath perspective. We are prone to believe that "caca'oca'a", that which is actually continuing now, is the most important part of the event, and can always be assumed as the default, but it cannot. "klama" is a most expansive relation, and just as well associates the coming of Paul to Damascus, an event which long ago entered its "ba'o" stage, as my going home tonight, which is hardly even in its "pu'o" stage yet. -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.