Received: from MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 4 Aug 1993 05:23:18 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 4 Aug 1993 05:23:16 -0400
Message-Id: <199308040923.AA04263@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0548; Wed, 04 Aug 93 05:22:08 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 1840; Wed, 04 Aug 93 05:23:29 EDT
Date:         Wed, 4 Aug 1993 10:21:35 +0100
Reply-To: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: On the tense system of ZAhO
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Ukn Aug  4 05:23:19 1993
X-From-Space-Address: C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK

I concur with Jorge that Bob is making a specious distinction
in order to explain something that, on hindsight, was an
error.
ZAhO fit into imaginary journeys, but for historical reasons
two of them were given words with inappropriate etymologies.

It is true that they work differently from PU when used as sumti
tcita, but that is not a reason to run the imaginary journey the
wrong way.

        Colin