Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tFYvp-0000ZTC; Wed, 15 Nov 95 05:54 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id EFB9B435 ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 4:54:40 +0100 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:52:52 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: za'o X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 948 Lines: 20 >From: ucleaar >Subject: Re: perfective counting & katna > >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? Since I haven't been reading detailed discussions on the list in most cases during the last year, I have no idea what their objections are. Unless you are merely saying that they disagree. We have za'o debated the fact that ZAHO as a sumti tcita comes out apparently backwards from ZAHO as an inflection on the selbri. I'm not going to try to reconstruct several months of discussions between Jorge and me a couple of years ago - see the archives. Either decision causes problems. The status quo wins, if only by default. lojbab