Message-Id: <199309011726.AA06817@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:19:26 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: ZAhO as sumti tcita
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: O

la lojbab cusku di'e
>
> This is off the top of my head, but one transform that seems like it should
 work
> in interpreting ZAhO compounds as sumti tcita is to make what I hope is a/the
> valid transformation:
>
> mi klama puza'o lenu carvi =>
> ca'o lenu mi klama kei puza'o carvi
>
> Or maybe that should be co'i instead of ca'o ...

co'i would agree better with what John said.
The tense paper says something about the asymmetry betwen the sumti event
and the main bridi. The only one that is actually claimed is the main bridi,
so your transformation is not quite equivalent. Something similar would be

ca lenu puza'o carvi kei mi co'i klama


> But I think that looking at this type of transofrm will give consistent
 answers
> regardless of what how complex the za'o mess is (though again it won't work
> with bare pu/ca/ba).
>
Right, this interprets a PU ZAhO, or even a more complex tense, I guess, in
the same way as a ZAhO, but a tense without a ZAhO follows a different rule.

It would be nice if all tenses were interpreted with the same rule, no matter
whether they had an explicit ZAhO or not. This rule would be

broda <tense> le nu brode ==> ca le nu brode kei <tense> broda

or maybe: ca le nu co'i brode kei <tense> broda
(I think that I tend to read ZAhO-less tenses as if they had an implicit
"co'i", is this too wrong?)

co'o mi'e xorxes