WikiDiscuss

{pu le nu da broda ku de brode} = {le nu de brode cu purci le nu da broda}

{da pu broda} = {da broda pu le nu mi bacru dei} =? {da broda pu zo’e}

In short, the main event is coordinated with (lies within) the indicated area of the subordinate event.

{da ba’o broda} =? {da broda ba’o mi bacru dei} = ? {da broda ba’o zo’e}

If these are correct, then here the subordinate event is coordinated with the marked area of the main event. If they are not correct, then the connection is a bit obscure. Perhaps {ba’o broda} amounts to {broda pu’o zo’e}, but that is clearly not quite right and other aspect markers work even less well.

The difference here is that tenses focus on the moment of speech and relate everything said to that, while aspects – in Lojban at least – focus on the event and relate everything to it. Thus, the problem for extended usage – where, for example, the cheated sumti is not an event description – comes down to figuring out what is analogous to this. In the paradigmatic case of overshooting destination x (de) to actually end up in y (di) we have the two possibilities

{da klama de za’o di} which vagues to {da za’o klama de} or

{da klama di za’o de} which comes to the same vague form.

The simplest analogy (though some would say the less plausible result) is that the cheated sumti has to lie in the overreach area of the event (going to x). Note that only this form allows the collapse {da za’o klama de} from {da klama de za’o zo’e}. On the other hand, this form does mean that the core sentence {da klama de} is – or may be – false. But, of course, that is also true of other aspects, {pu’o} at least. And also, only the second form allows the collpase {da za’o klama de} from {da klama zo’e za’o de}, which looks to be an equally plausible source. But the balance seems to lie with the first reading.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

---

> 1) the main sentence event is coordinated
> with the indicated aspect of the subordinated event or 2) the subordinated
> event is coordinated with the indicated aspect of the main event. the one
> follows regular tenses, the other regular aspects. I think the first makes
> more sense (is easier to figure out, is more useful — none of which I can
> prove).

The second is more useful for {co'a} and {co'u}, as it gives convenient
ways of doing "from ..." and "until ...". But besides usefulness, the
second is the one consistent with the rest of the tags. In general
{broda zo'e} has the same sense as { broda}, but the first
interpretation makes ZAhOs the exception to this.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html