Re: TECH: more on ZAhO

[C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK]

John Cowan replies to my material on tcita:

> As to the remaining material, I agree that "seba'o" is bogus, and I agree
> that there is a problem.  I don't think that using ZAhO+KU will fix it,
> because currently that is defined (by IJ) to mean the same as the selbri
> tcita.  I will ponder the matter further.

I think that in the light of my argument,  that definition should be
changed. Syntactically, <tag KU> is a <term>, and so the tag should function
the same as in other terms (such as <tag sumti>). At least one version of the
draft textbook introduces selbri tcita in this way.

The difference does not matter much except for BAhO.

(You may note a further instance of my campaign to make the semantic structure
agree with the syntactic structure. I think this is important as a principle).

I don't know what "IJ" means.

                        Colin