X-Digest-Num: 79
Message-ID: <44114.79.480.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 12:31:53 -0500
From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Subject: Re: lo lunra selgusni ninmu
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 480
Content-Length: 1350
Lines: 36

>From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>
>la lojbab cusku di'e
>>>{ko'a mi puzuku bazuku xanjai}
>>
>>Not knowing what he wanted, this seems to be a compound tense involving an
>>imaginaryjouney a long way into the past and then relative to that, a long
>>way into the future - in short back to the present - maybe soemthing like
>>"a long time ago was eventually going to do/be X"
>
>You and John seem to agree that {puzuku bazuku} is the same as {puzubazuku}.
>I checked the refgram and I can't find this mentioned there.

Start with example 13.5), pg 234, combining with the discussion on page
216, section 1 on the equivalence of tense+ku with selbri tense.  The use
of sequential tenses as being vector additive is the essential paradigm of
both the imaginary journey metaphor and the storytime convention.

>The problem with this view is that it doesn't work in general. For example,
>{puco'aku baco'uku} cannot be welded into a single tense.

?pau It cannot grammatically, ?ji it cannot logically be so welded

was starting the event of later ending X?

>I think an
>interpretation that works for all cases is better than one that only works
>for some.

You could use a nonlogical interval connective to get an interval starting
in the past and ending in the future.  pubi'iba?  (I'm very rusty.)