Re: paroi ro mentu

["jjllambias2000" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> If {pa roi ko'a} means, roughly, {pa roi ca ko'a} xor {ca ko'a
> pa roi}, doesn't that imply that the tag's relation to its own
> sumti is at the same level as its relation to its sister sumti?

Roughly, yes. But the roughness is precisely at the point in
question. {paroi ca ko'a} means "once in the unspecified interval,
and coincident with ko'a". Now, it could well be that ko'a is the
unspecified interval, but consider a quantified case:
{paroiku ca ci da} that's "once in the unspecified interval, and
coincident with three things". The three things can't all be the
unspecified interval.   
          
> (What's the difference between 'rotate' and 'revolve'? I'm sure
> John will enjoy telling me...)

The Earth rotates around its axis and revolves around the Sun.

> > {ci djedi} cannot be the length of one occurrence, it is
> > three separate lengths. 
> 
> It is three separate lengths, but they can perfectly well be
> contiguous -- cf "I travelled just the once, on Monday, Tuesday,
> and Wednesday".

That would require joining the days with {joi}. 

> So {re roi ci djedi cu klama} would mean "travel twice, each
> travelling occuring on each of three things of a day's duration".

I think that has to be {re roi pa djedi be li ci}, one three-day
period, not three one-day periods.

> That's not how I'd read {ca ci djedi} -- I'd say it says something
> happens on day 1, day 2 and day 3, but not that it necessarily
> happens three times. E.g. {mi zvati la paris ca re djedi} is 
> sensical if I went there for a weekend trip.

It is sensical, but you're viewing it as two events:

    re da poi djedi zo'u mi zvati la paris ca da

The property {mi zvati la paris ca ce'u} is said to hold for
exactly two values. ({ze'a} is better than {ca} to indicate 
that each of the events lasts exactly one full day, rather than
just being coincident at some point with one day, but the same
principle applies.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes