Message-Id: <199510271704.NAA06457@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:29:41 -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

>> 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.
>
>Is {bai broda} possible? I didn't know it was. And if it is, I don't
>know what it means.

mi bai citka le plise  -> I eat the apple under duress/compulsion
There's no place for the compellor without separating "bai" off and turning
it into a proper tag.

>I sort of see. Kind of like {fau} then, except that whereas {fau}
>is the sumti for the entire event, {coa} is the sumti for just
>the initial bit of the event. Right? But in that case {coa li mu}
>would still not make sense.

Hmmm... how about {co'a tu'a li mu}?  If we were currently at the point in
time when the counter was saying {li mu}, we would say {co'a katna}, i.e.
{katna co'a zo'e} i.e. {katna co'a ti} i.e. {katna co'a tu'a li mu}.

I originally posted my analysis of {co'a citka} --> {citka co'a da} because
I thought it was a misuse to assume in the latter that {co'a} referred to
the beginning of {da} rather than {citka}.  {li mu} *is* the starting point
of the selbri {katna} above, so it seems basically right, although I think
{tu'a} is needed since co'a takes an event, not a number.