2010/10/14 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> I officially declare {baba} as evil.
There is really no reason to have a special definition for "ba ba". I
thought we had decided to remove it from the list of definitions.
Really? I hadn't heard.
That's not right though. There is no indication of aspect in "ba ba".
And in any case, the "Durational (progressive/continuous) Aspects in
Future" is "I will be going" as in "I will be singing". Don't confuse
"I will be going (home)", with "I will be going to (sing)", where
"go" is used as an auxiliary.
Yes. I know. I'm a native English speaker. I know the difference between "I will be going home" and "I will be going to sing". If you look at the chart on the linked page, you'll see that /all/ of the entries have the word "aspects" in them. And obviously {baba} has nothing to do with a destination. It is the stupidity of the English language using "will be going to" that's the problem here.
But neither of those is "ba ba" in any case. "I will be going" is "mi
ba ca'o klama", and "I will be going to sing" is "mi ba pu'o klama".
mu'o mi'e xorxes