From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Sep 30 03:31:45 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 30 Sep 2000 10:31:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 11204 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2000 10:31:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Sep 2000 10:31:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hh.egroups.com) (10.1.10.40) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2000 10:31:45 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.230] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 30 Sep 2000 10:31:42 -0000 Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:31:39 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: {za'o} in space Message-ID: <8r4feb+36eb@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1050 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" Remembering our discussions on the use of superfective {za'o} e.g. "mi za'o klama la ralix" etc., I had never doubted that this had been correct, as I do now: Shouldn't it had been e.g.: "mi *fe'e* za'o klama la ralix."? >From the examples in p. 231, 11.4) (mi ve'abe'a fe'e *co'a* rokci) I take it that the event contours of selma'o ZAhO (including {za'o}) are regarded as referring to time rather than to space, so a "space interval modifier" (not my own expression!) FEhE is needed for {za'o} as well. If my deduction is right, then the example on p. 233, 12.10) doesn't seem to be correct either: I'd read it instead: "le bloti pu *fe'e* za'o xelklama fe'e ba'o le lalxu" (The boat had sailed too *farth* and - therefore - beyond the lake=touching the coast). The mere *duration* of sailing wouldn't have caused the fatal accident ;) I imagine that even the "even" problem could be affected by this (since Jorge seems to regard/use {za'o} here also under a kind of spatial aspect (in the sense of reaching the boundaries of). .aulun.