On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:Does {za'a} imply that the event described by the sentence is witnessed at the very time of utterance, or does it simply means that the information comes from direct personal experience (directly/sensorily witnessed), even if in remote past? Is {za'a pu broda} nonsensical?
I would say the former, in contrast with "ti'e" for second-hand evidence.I don't see why "za'a" couldn't be combined with "ba'a nai" or even with "ba'a", even if "za'a [ba'a cu'i]" is te most common use.We probably should not be mixing the time of the event (marked with PU) with the time in which the evidence for the event is obtained (marked with "ba'a [cu'i/nai]"). All combinations are possible, as it is possible to remember (knowing) that something will happen in the future, and to expect (to find out) that something has happened in the past. I suppose that in the case of "za'a", the PU-time and the ba'a-time should match, but not necessarily for other evidentials.mu'o mi'e xorxes--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout .