Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 03:13:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712080813.DAA03113@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: ca'a/pu'i X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 752 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 8 03:13:59 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >>Isn't {ca'a} = "actually occurs" and {pu'i} = "actually occurred"? >>How can they not relate to whether the event actually occurs? > >I meant: >They relate to potentiality of an event to occur, and not WHEN it actually >occurs. > >lojbab But isn't the only difference between them WHEN the event occurs? Of course you can add other tenses as well: caca'a : is now actually occurring capu'i: now it has actually occurred puca'a: was then actually occurring pupu'i: back then it had actually ocurred baca'a: will then be actually occurring bapu'i: by then it will have actually occurred The only difference between ca'a and pu'i seems to be that ca'a contains ca and pu'i contains pu, both morphologically and semantically. co'o mi'e xorxes