basti xa'urjudri

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

I was going to send this only to rityjbo and lojbab, as of limited interest to
the rest, but I came upon a grammatical point, so I'm sending it more widely

la cimast padjed zo'u mi xabju nu'i co'uku la spensr. darg. .e co'aku
la pembrtn. velklam. .i to'unai mi co'a se xa'urjudri la'o gy.
        33 Pemberton Drive
        Bradford
        BD7 1RA
gy. .i mi co'a se fonjudri li norezevo pi'e zecicixabino

        co'omi'e kolin


The-one-named 3-month 1-day as-for: I inhabit [cessitively the-one-named
spencer road] and [initiatively the-one-named pemberton
thing-travelled-via].
In detail I initiatively am inhabit-addressed-by quote
        33 Pemberton Drive
        Bradford
        BD7 1RA
end-quote. I initiatively am phone-addressed-by the-number 0274:733680

        Partings-I-am Colin


Note on the grammar:
I first tried connected sumti:
        mi xabju co'u sy. .eco'abo py. ("cessitively S and initiatively P")
but this makes the whole phrase "sy. .eco'abo py." a tcita sumti, introduced
by the (aspectual) sumti tcita "co'u", hence "I inhabit at-the-end-of
(temporally) [S and startingly P]"

So I was looking for a more coordinate form, and tried
        "*mi xabju geco'ubo sy. .egico'abo py." (intended to mean
        "I inhabit [both endingly S and startingly P]"
but this is ungrammatical on two counts: you can't use <GI stag> (though
I suspect this has changed since the grammar I have) and in any case you
can't use <GE stag>.

I then realised that what I must mean was a termset, because effectively
I had two pairs of linked sumti - the old address and corresponding temporal
sumti, and the new address with its temporal sumti. I think this works, but
it's fiddly. Furthermore, I'm not happy about "co'aku" - as I have said in
an earlier discussion, ZAhO pattern differently from other sumti tcita in
that their meaning is in a sense reversed depending on whether they are
sumti tcita or selbri tcita. "co'aku" and the like are syntactically <term>,
ie sumti tcita lacking their sumti, so I feel they ought to have the meaning
fo sumti tcita. But this use relies on their behaving like selbri tcita, ie

        "mi xabju co'uku sy."
means
        "mi co'u xabju sy."
and not
        "mi xabju sy. co'u zo'e"


(NB In case anybody is wondering, this discussion has nothing to do with the
other discussion going on about *mo'u: the selbri is predicated of both sumti,
and so we are in the common ground of 'esemaubo'-type constructions.)