Re: lo lunra selgusni ninmu

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>]

la lojbab cusku di'e

>>{ko'a mi puzuku bazuku xanjai}
>
>Not knowing what he wanted, this seems to be a compound tense involving an
>imaginaryjouney a long way into the past and then relative to that, a long
>way into the future - in short back to the present - maybe soemthing like
>"a long time ago was eventually going to do/be X"

You and John seem to agree that {puzuku bazuku} is the same as {puzubazuku}.
I checked the refgram and I can't find this mentioned there.

The problem with this view is that it doesn't work in general. For example,
{puco'aku baco'uku} cannot be welded into a single tense. I think an
interpretation that works for all cases is better than one that only works
for some.

>One can look at two apparently separate events as being a single continuous
>event with an interruption.  For example if a multiday race is stopped for
>the night (I think that's the way Grand prix races work), then at night you
>can talk about pujoiba litru as a simultaneously past and future event.

Yes, If you can view one single event as happening discontinuously
then of course it can be in the past and in the future and not in the
present.

>You can also use such a tense in a looping concept of time where the future
>indeed is the past, or in a time travel scenario, or...  Use your
>imagination %^)

You certainly can. I still think that if one single event is both in the
past
and in the future, it is most likely also in the present. I'm sure there
are contexts where this is not so. That's why I said "it strongly
suggests", and "you are not actually stating it", because it really
depends on the context.

co'o mi'e xorxes