Re: ZAhO: A view from the sidelines

[John Cowan <snark!cowan@GVLS1.VFL.PARAMAX.COM>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> The rules for the semantics of PUs as sumti tcita and ZAhOs as sumti tcita
> are unfortunately different. I say unfortunately because there is no
> reason that requires this to be so.

It's not so simple.  As I have said before, the nature of ZAhO is really
one-place -- it selects a portion of an event for salience -- and its
use as a sumti tcita is only remotely connected with its use as a selbri
tense.  This is not true for PU/FAhA, which are inherently two-place.

The question is not why PU (as sumtcita) and ZAhO (as sumtcita) are
inconsistent, but why they should be consistent in the first place.

--
John Cowan      cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.