Re: lo lunra selgusni ninmu

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

>>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.
>
>Start with example 13.5), pg 234, combining with the discussion on page
>216, section 1 on the equivalence of tense+ku with selbri tense.

That explains what {puzubazuku} means. Nowhere does it say what
to do when you have two separate ku tenses.

>The use
>of sequential tenses as being vector additive is the essential paradigm of
>both the imaginary journey metaphor and the storytime convention.

That's how you construct one compound tense. It doesn't tell you
what to do when you have two non-compoundable tenses.

>>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.
>
>?pau It cannot grammatically, ?ji it cannot logically be so welded

Neither grammatically nor, as far as I can see, logically.

>was starting the event of later ending X?

The start of the end is {co'a co'u}. That could either be in the
past or in the future. I don't understand what you mean by
"was starting the event of later ending X". Did the ending of X
start in the past or in the future?

And of course, you'd still have to give explanations for more
complex non-compoundable posibilities, like
{puzu'aku caga'uku bari'uku}.

The imaginary journey works well for single compound
tenses. I don't see the need to force it when you have not
one compond tense but several distinct tenses.

>>I think an
>>interpretation that works for all cases is better than one that only works
>>for some.
>
>You could use a nonlogical interval connective to get an interval starting
>in the past and ending in the future.  pubi'iba?  (I'm very rusty.)

Yes, I never said you couldn't, but that doesn't address what I said.
And {puku baku}, in my interpretation, does not describe an interval.
It describes only two time points.

co'o mi'e xorxes