Message-Id: <m0tE0xC-0000ZTC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 8 Nov 1995 20:13:58 +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
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1080
Lines: 21

Lojbab
> >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}.
> There is actually more usage of ZAhO as sumtcita than as inflection,
> and the first usages in text were as sumtcita, which is part of the
> reason they ended up "backwards" in that context from their inflection
> ary role (though there are other reasons of course - let's not reopne
> that can of worms). za'o le nu citka to me would refer to the time
> period after the meal that my son continues to return to his plate and
> nibble on the dregs

So would {tavla zao le nu citka} mean, roughly, "there is talking
during the superfective-perduration of the eating"? I.e. is it
equivalent to {tavla ca le nu zao citka}? This is what the Tense Paper
says. In this case, what is the response to objections from Nick,
Jorge, Chris - reputable and conservative lojbanists all?

---
And