From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCB-aPlBBoEu4eQjw@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 03 14:58:43 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P2WZr-0000za-Fj; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:58:43 -0700 Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15sf1197233wwe.16 for ; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:58:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=g0bGPhikFjlD49wAfK9AF89jPlmQYGF+ZTsZlltDSBc=; b=z7Z5TG7EwRBH0OHOL9DeTavUjusXiL5mQbwtSSOJePGypzeJU4kM6tY6ykRQj4fmxT 45q41mndAe011u0rhInMR/UuaKcVrZ6AZIk/CmXRN5zUEcc0BX+GKT7guKce55sbYfr7 f/5lSTP8i1SZKOEmMD03i1j/IFvE1LYVEDo6M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RCRPa12TyS1PclBV41B4CQiWQ7xCaaxKFT83N+9iS/bcnCk9cg30SBUlOMJwzpf8uC atvWkG7pXdVE+TRRKv6EI8LNw6gbBaSQHhD9Li4ug30GxgBzLCsMmHApPtrrY/5wYRrI 5sQQI1uKwEQ5FUxU3kM0nzV5gQVUD6bpN3WeI= Received: by 10.216.144.196 with SMTP id n46mr1467830wej.21.1286143105987; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:58:25 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.237.134 with SMTP id y6ls1933373weq.2.p; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.20.141 with SMTP id p13mr410356wep.11.1286143104977; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.20.141 with SMTP id p13mr410355wep.11.1286143104957; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:58:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f45.google.com (mail-ww0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id r4si1128435wec.14.2010.10.03.14.58.23; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.45; Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so5067085wwa.26 for ; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:58:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.156.196 with SMTP id y4mr6567957wbw.219.1286142678624; Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:51:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:51:18 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] A pro-sumti for PU? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > 2010/10/3 Jorge Llamb=EDas >> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Ian Johnson >> wrote: >> >> > I'm thinking of trying to unambiguously >> > (which rules out {zo'e}, if you're willing to nitpick) say "now", assi= gn >> > that time to a variable, >> >> I guess you could use something like "ko'a goi lo nau fasnu". >> > Does CUhE work like that? As I said, all tags (BAI, CAhA, CUhE, KI, ZI, PU, VA, FAhA, ZEhA, VEhA, VIhA, number ROI, TAhE, ZAhO) work in the same way when used individually. They only work differently in how they combine with one another to form compound tags. >> But "nau" is for the time of the utterance, not for the time of what >> the utterance is describing. In this example "nau" doesn't play any >> relevant role, since eveything in the story has happened in the past >> of the time when the story is told. > > Then is there an unambiguous way (again, {ca zo'e} isn't sufficient for > this, in my opinion) to point at a time in the story? We already mentioned "lo tcika be lo nu na'o". Or simpler: "lo tcika be la'e dei". "dei" gets you the utterance, but "la'e dei" gets you what the utterance is describing. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.