[lojban-beginners] Re: .imu'ibo

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM, chris kerr <letsclimbhigher@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why was this xoxes?  If "pu" had equaled "fi'o purci" it seems like
> everything would have been more intuitive.  Personally I find it odd
> that the sumti that "pu" eats (when it's not in front of a selbri), is
> what's in the future.

I think it's actually quite intuitive that "pu ko'a" has the meaning
of "purci ko'a", i.e. "broda pu ko'a" = "lo nu broda cu purci ko'a".
For me it's "mu'i ko'a" not being "mukti ko'a" that is less intuitive.

As for the reasons why PU and BAI ended up different, the way it was
explained to me is basically that they started from different places.
PU was originally just a selbri tcita, and its extension as a sumti
tcita came later. BAI started as sumti tcita, and it was later
extended to selbri tcita. Also, BAIs were associated with a gismu so
that they could be converted with SE to get each of the arguments, and
for that to work properly the argument that it tagged had to be the x1
of the associated gismu rather than the x2.  PU (and other "tenses")
are not strictly associated with a gismu and cannot be converted with
SE. In fact, not every "tense" has an obvious gismu to go with it, and
while FAhAs do generally follow the pattern of PU ("ne'i" = "fi'o se
nenri", "zu'a" = "fi'o se zunle", etc.) sometimes they don't ("fa'a" =
"fi'o farna", "zo'i" = "fi'o ?????").

mu'o mi'e xorxes