From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jan 23 04:55:30 2000
X-Digest-Num: 343
Message-ID: <44114.343.1831.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:55:30 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Subjunctive?
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1831


> > caba'o citka = has now eaten
> > puba'o citka = had eaten
> > baba'o citka = will have eaten
> >
> > Before these aspectuals (ca'o, ba'o, pu'o) were introduced
> > to the language, these compound English tenses were translated
> > by chained Lojban tenses, but doing that now that we have
> > the aspectuals is not really a very good idea.
>
>An excellent scheme. But it is an innovation upon the Book, not a
>clarification of it.

The first paragraph of the Book's chapter on tense explicity
says that it doesn't deal with the question of how best to
translate a given English tense. Here I am suggesting that
the tense+aspectual combination is a better translation
than the tense+tense combination. I agree that this is not
a clarification of anything in the Book, but it is not in
contradiction with it either, is it?

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com