Message-Id: <199510271706.NAA06861@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:29:48 -0600
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject:      Re: perfective counting & katna
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>> > >  mi co'a citka le plise  --> I start eating the apple
>> > > should be the same as:
>> > >  mi co'a ku citka le plise
>> > > and therefore
>> > >  mi citka le plise co'a ku
>> > > and therefore
>> > >  mi citka le plise co'a da ku
>> > But {coa citka} is a kind of tanru. {coa} alters the meaning of
>> > the selbri, like {toe} but unlike, say, {na} or {pu}. I agree with
>> > you both as far as {na} and {pu} are concerned, but see little
>> > basis for deciding what the meaning of ZAHO as sumtcita shd be.

I was off the list for a while and missed the rest of the message that
contained this response, so I've only heard it out of context.  But with BAI
tags and tense tags there's a nice correspondence between the meaning when
sticking it before the broda and using it as a sumti tcita.  It seems like a
nice idea to have ZAhO be consistent with {pu} and {bai}.  {na} is a
different story, pe'i, because it can't be a sumti tcita.

>> A better comparison might be with BAI. {broda bai <sumti>} is
>> essentially {bai broda} but with an extra place, in this case for
>> the compeller.

Or to put it another way, {bai broda} could be seen as a shorthand for
{broda bai zo'e}, just as {pu broda} is short for {broda pu zo'e}