Re: [lojban] seca'o

[Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

2015-08-31 18:11 GMT+03:00 Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org>:

On Monday, August 31, 2015 17:24:49 Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> Okay, then one more question: are {fi'o jai ve'a tcaci}, {fi'o se ranji}
> and {fi'o jai ve'a tcaci} tenses?

A {fi'o} construction of any sort is not a tense, but {ve'a} is a tense marker.

The previous constucts were proposed expansions of TAhE.

I don't think I can immediately understand which features tense markers must possess to be called tenses (not being able to take SE, not being able to work as sumtcita?) but 

what I can say that your question isn't relevant to the notion of "tense marker" in general but to Lojbanic understanding of it. So any new brivla (hopefully not cimjvo invading jvajvo space) would do.

Pierre
--
ve ka'a ro klaji la .romas. se jmaji

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.