Message-Id: <199512091519.RAA10531@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 9 Dec 1995 16:00:44 MET
Reply-To: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Subject:      Re: PLI: ZAhO and tanru
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1535
Lines: 44

> > > 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