From pycyn@aol.com Sun Aug 11 13:35:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 11 Aug 2002 20:35:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 16204 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2002 20:35:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Aug 2002 20:35:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 2002 20:35:27 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.11e.14c10432 (4402) for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:35:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <11e.14c10432.2a88248a@aol.com> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:35:22 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] space tenses To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11e.14c10432.2a88248a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_11e.14c10432.2a88248a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/11/2002 1:06:23 PM Central Daylight Time, a-rosta@alphaphe.com writes: > Can you explain? I've tried not to learn or think about the > tense system, because I dislike it so much, but naively I > would gloss these thus: > > {mi klama le zarci pu'o le nu mi citka} > > I go to the shop in the runup to my eating. > > {mi klama le zarci ca le nu mi pu'o citka} > > I go to the shop at the time of the runup to my eating. > > {mi pu'o klama le zarci ca le nu mi citka}. > > It is the runup to my going, at the time of my eating, to the store. > > Hence my naive glossing reflects the usage you consider erroneous. > > Oh, I see: the issue is whether pu'o means "runup to" or "inchoative" > or "until", since all 3 are different but equally sanctioned by the > ma'oste, just like ba'o (aftermath v. since v. perfective). > Usually I'd say this is xorxes job, but, so far as I understand you, I think you agree with xorxes (so far as I understand him) in the first two cases and then flop over to the other side. I don't hate tenses, but they can give me a headache, so I am dealing with this mess rather slowly -- maybe tomorrow. --part1_11e.14c10432.2a88248a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/11/2002 1:06:23 PM Central Daylight Time, a-rosta@alphaphe.com writes:


Can you explain? I've tried not to learn or think about the
tense system, because I dislike it so much, but naively I
would gloss these thus:

{mi klama le zarci pu'o le nu mi citka}

I go to the shop in the runup to my eating.

{mi klama le zarci ca le nu mi pu'o citka}

I go to the shop at the time of the runup to my eating.

{mi pu'o klama le zarci ca le nu mi citka}.

It is the runup to my going, at the time of my eating, to the store.

Hence my naive glossing reflects the usage you consider erroneous.

Oh, I see: the issue is whether pu'o means "runup to" or "inchoative"
or "until", since all 3 are different but equally sanctioned by the
ma'oste, just like ba'o (aftermath v. since v. perfective).


Usually I'd say this is xorxes job, but, so far as I understand you, I think you agree with xorxes (so far as I understand him) in the first two cases and then flop over to the other side.

I don't hate tenses, but they can give me a headache, so I am dealing with this mess rather slowly -- maybe tomorrow. --part1_11e.14c10432.2a88248a_boundary--