Re: lo lunra selgusni ninmu

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> >I suppose that {mi ba'oku klama le zarci} is the same as
> >{mi ba'o klama le zarci} and not {mi ba'o zo'e klama le zarci}, right?
> 
> I hesitate to say, because John and I have answered the question before,
> and it might even be in the Book.  My interpretation barring John saying
> otherwise, however, would be that the ku form presumes the ellipsized
> sumti.

No, actually the Codex Woldemar does say otherwise: tense+KU is equivalent
to tense+selbri, no matter whether it is before the selbri or not:
they are explicitly declared so at the beginning of Section 10.12.

> The paradigm that had us add puku for example was originally that
> of ellipsized sumti, and not as a semantics-free transformational grammar
> maneuver.  It just was convenient and logical to make puku adjacent to the
> selbri be equivalent to pu in the selbri.  But I think that
> transformability need not be so for ba'o.

Perhaps it should not have been so, but it is so as of today.

> I know that in support of the compounding interpretation, there were some
> things that could not be said with a single tenseconstruct because
> ungrammatical, which John said would be expressed using two consecutive
> tenses.  For example,
> 
> mi baki ne'iki klama

This whole example is rather pointless, I think, unless the ki's
are subscripted, because the second ki will override the first,
so this is the same as bane'iki.

There are other examples that make somewhat more sense, though.

> It was a late modification that John made that allowed both orders to be
> possible without a ku.

Basically requiring fe'e to flag *every* TAhE, ROI, or ZAhO that
was about space eliminated the ambiguity.  (Previously a fe'e
was needed to *separate* time and space interval qualifiers,
which meant they had to be in a fixed order.)
 
> Remember that it is not necessarily the case that logical connectives
> expand into separate bridi. I am not sure what has been said about tense
> logical connection.

Tense logical connection is expandable: only tanru logical connection
is not.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)