From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:22 2010 Reply-To: Goran Topic Sender: Lojban list Date: Sat Dec 9 10:32:32 1995 From: Goran Topic Subject: Re: PLI: ZAhO and tanru X-To: Lojban Listserv To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Sat Dec 9 10:32:32 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: > > > But now you seem to be saying that it means "I begin to eat now", > > > while {mi bao citka} wd mean "I am no longer eating". > > Yes. And this is is what perfectives mean in Russian too, which is > > the only natlang I know that uses them. Actually Russian only has pu'o > > ca'o and ba'o, come to think of it. Actually, Croatian too, being related, and I think Chinese uses similar techniques of aspect and does not have tenses, etc. > I see. How would you say "I began to eat"? Is there any difference > between {mi cao citka} and {mi ca citka}? How would you say "I > was eating"? 1) .i mi puco'a citka 2) Usually no, but: .iru'a da mu'e ca darxi .ija'o co'i darxi .ije na ca'o darxi .ije ca darxi > > na'e alters the meaning of the selbri itself - on some scale, > > without necessarily referring to any of its sumti > > Does NAhE have sumti? I do believe that he meant the selbri sumti, not NAhE sumti. > > (which of course can make the implied scale rather ambiguous when > > na'e is used inside a tanru) > > If {cukta nanmu} is "book person", then why shouldn't {cukta nae > nanmu} be, no more and no less straightforwardly, "book non-person"? I don't see how this can be disputed... co'o mi'e. goran. -- GAT/CS/O d?@ H s:-@ !g p1(2)@ !au(0?) a- w+(+++) (!)v-@(+) C++(++++) UU/H(+) P++>++++ L(>+) !3 E>++ N+ K(+) W--(---) M-- !V(--) -po+ Y(+) t+@(+++) !5 !j R+@ G-@(J++) tv+(++) b++@ D++ B? e+* u@ h!$ f?(+) r-- !n(+@) y+. GeekCode v2.1, modifications left to reader to puzzle out