Message-Id: <m0tFsXH-0000ZTC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 15 Nov 1995 19:50:08 -0500
Reply-To:     Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: perfective counting & katna
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1083
Lines: 27

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