Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t8wmj-0000ZRC; Fri, 27 Oct 95 23:57 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 1E590A64 ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 22:57:56 +0100 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:29:41 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: perfective counting & katna X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1217 Lines: 25 >> A better comparison might be with BAI. {broda bai } 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.