Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id TAA15994 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 19:57:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199511160057.TAA15994@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 7FF994FE ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 20:50:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 19:50:08 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: perfective counting & katna X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 15 19:57:08 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU And: > I thought that the meaning of ZAHO as sumtcita is still undecided, or > at least up for grabs. I don't know what the official status is exactly, but I simply don't use {ba'o le nu broda} in the meaning of {ca le nu ba'o broda}. I was reluctant to use {co'a} and {co'u} in what I understand to be their logical sense until I discovered that Nick had been always using them like that. > If the meaning {puo} and {bao} as sumtcita is > certain, then can we not take it that other ZAHO behave likewise? In my opinion their meaning is as certain as that of {co'a} and {co'u}. The usage is different for the two pairs. (The usage of {ca'o} is rather neutral between the two styles, and there is practically no usage of the rest of the ZAhOs as sumti tcita.) The {ba'o} and {pu'o} style is sanctioned by the tense paper. The {co'a} and {co'u} style is sanctioned by common sense. > I find it strange that {coa} and {cou} not behave like {puo} and {bao}. Me too, but I would put it differently: I find it strange that {pu'o} and {ba'o} not behave like {co'a} and {co'u}. Jorge