On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Luke Bergen <
lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm having a little trouble understanding these tenses. Probably because of
> my english. If I see {mi citka ba lo nu mi xagji} I see how {ba} is saying
> that the {citka} happens "after" the event of me being hungry. So {ba}
> relates two things the selbri and the thing that comes after the {ba}.
version of "mi ba citka".
In both cases you are saying that the eating happens after.
But after what? Well, unless you specify, or context says otherwise,
it's after the present. But you can always use a different reference
point, like "lo nu mi xagji".
> But
> how does that work with something like an event contour like {mo'u}?
In my understanding, it's just the same. Instead of saying that the
eating happens later, you are now saying that it gets completed. But
later than what? Completed when? You can add that specification with a
sumti if you want to.
> There's only one thing in the relationship of {mo'u} and it's the thing
> that is at its natural ending point. Is it possible for X to be at it's
> natural ending point in relation to Y? And what would that mean anyway?
> How does Y come into play with regard to the main selbri?
Y would be the point at which X is completed.
> I think whatever it is, I would agree with you xorxes. A tag effects the
> main selbri, not the thing after the tag. {mi citka mo'u lo nu mi xagji} is
> saying that I am at the natural ending point of eating <some relationship>
> the event of me being hungry.
The obvious relationship being simultaneity (for "fe'e mo'u" the
obvious relationship would be spatial coincidence).