Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0p5ewF-0000PbC; Fri, 3 Dec 93 20:09 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 6679; Fri, 03 Dec 93 20:09:24 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6676; Fri, 3 Dec 1993 20:09:22 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0942; Fri, 3 Dec 1993 19:08:23 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 13:07:57 EST Reply-To: jorge%PHYAST.PITT.EDU@FINHUTC.hut.fi Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: The return of the ZAhO X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1097 Lines: 36 Colin Wright says: > Now consider example 12.6 > > mi morsi ba'o lenu mi jmive > > The ba'o tags the event of my living, and the ba'o > indicates that the relationship expressed by the > bridi is complete when taken relative to the sumti. > Thus this translates as > > I die and finish doing so before I live. > > Hmm. The translation given is that I die in the > aftermath of my living, which makes more sense, but > seems to me to be inconsistent with the previous > examples. > > Comments ?? I agree with you. For all tags that don't contain a member of ZAhO, the rule is consistent: the tag modifies the main bridi in the same sense as when applied directly to the selbri. If the tag contains a ZAhO, however, things are more or less reversed. I believe that the problem in the case of ba'o stems from the fact that the definitions of ba'o and pu'o are crossed. (WARNING: This is my opinion only, contrary to the canonical one.) I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. If you can get hold of old postings to the list you can read an abundant discussion of the topic. Jorge