[lojban-beginners] Re: zvati

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 6/10/05, Betsemes <betsemes@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  If an
> agreement is reached in the sense of bu'u meaning "coincident with ?? in
> both space and time" then I'll accept it. In the mean time, I'll consider
> bu'u a pure location tense cmavo.

That's quite all right, usage will decide in the end. I consider it
purely locational too, it's just that I don't accept that something
that is not there can serve to indicate a location. {bu'u le karce}
means "at the location of the car", not "at any location the car 
ever was or will be". {bu'u lo nu pu salci} indicates the location 
where a party was held in the past, not a location where, for 
example, at some point in the future, a party will have been held 
in the past. 

If you see a difference between {bu'u} and {zvati} though, what 
makes you think that {zvati} is not purely locational?

"x1 (object/event) is at/attending/present at x2 (event/location)
[refers to a nonce location for an object/activity that is mobile]; 
(cf. especially stuzi for an inherent/inalienable location"

The definition only mentions location.

mu'o mi'e xorxes