Message-Id: <199511150443.XAA02765@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:52:52 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      za'o
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
>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