Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 27 Aug 1993 05:40:29 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 27 Aug 1993 05:40:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199308270940.AA00751@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6248; Fri, 27 Aug 93 05:39:01 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6606; Fri, 27 Aug 93 05:41:44 EDT Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 10:38:01 +0100 Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: TECH: QUERY on ZI & ZEhA To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Fri Aug 27 11:38:01 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET la xorxes retspuda fi la djan fe di'e +++++++++++++++++> > 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? >+++++++++++++ The difference has always seemed natural to me. I want to be able to say I am in the aftermath of eating and I was happy in the aftermath of eating and it seems to be sensible to make them the same word. Because one is a predication and the other a modification, the structures turn out different: mi ba'o citka mi gleki ba'o le nu citka and analysing these you see that the two ba'o's are in some way complementary rather than synonymous. To try to give the sumti tcita 'the same meaning' as the selbri tcita would make mi gleki ba'o le nu citka something like "I was happy and this had as its aftermath my eating" But this is not a form of expression which I have ever felt the need for. (Note it is not the same as "I was happy in the prelude to my eating") Colin