Return-Path: <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@BITMAIL.LSOFT.COM>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tCZ5O-0000ZTC; Mon, 6 Nov 95 23:28 EET
Message-Id: <m0tCZ5O-0000ZTC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 9D68CCF2 ; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 22:28:09 +0100
Date:         Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:43:10 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: perfective counting & katna
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 603
Lines: 15

Jorge:
> It is not clear how {za'o} behaves as sumti tcita, since it hasn't
> been used much as such. I would prefer that it be like {co'a} and
> {co'u}, and not like {ba'o} and {pu'o}.
[...]
> the case of {pu'o} and {ba'o}, where the tag simply has a totally
> different effect when used as sumti vs. selbri tcita.

I thought that the meaning of ZAHO as sumtcita is still undecided, or
at least up for grabs. If the meaning {puo} and {bao} as sumtcita is
certain, then can we not take it that other ZAHO behave likewise? I
find it strange that {coa} and {cou} not behave like {puo} and {bao}.

---
And