Re: TECH: QUERY on ZI & ZEhA

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

You were right re co'a vs. co'i, and you may be right re the need for fe'e
since I didn't check the grammar and this isn't stuff I use everyday.

As for ze'eco'a vs co'aze'e:  the intended grammar and semantics of za'o
is that it is a tense interval modifier.  There is always an implied
interval to which it implies, and the ZAhO grammatically comes after that
interval.  We eliminated the 'unspecified interval' cmavo, which used to
be none other than ze'e and ve'e, so you cannot any longer make the implicit
explicit.

Now what is that interval???  That really is the question.  If you say
"me ze'u klama" you are saying that nu klama is going on for a long
period of time; i.e. the interval is the interval during which the bridi/event
takes place.  (Oops that was supposed to be "mi ze'u klama")

If you say "mi ze'e klama" your going takes place throughout eternity.
If you then restrict this to say mi ze'eco'a klama, you are then saying that
you are at the beginning of the eternal event of going, and therefore at the
beginning of time.  Thus ze'eco'a pinpoints the tense as the beginning of
time; i.e the Big Bang per that theory.

Now if you use certain other interval modifiers, you may create subevents
within the larger interval.  #roi obviously does so, and objectively.
The TAhE (I think that's the selma'o) family including "regularly", habitually"
etc. also creates subevents within the larger interval.  You can then assign
relative intervals to these subevents, ad nauseum:
mi ze'eso'iroize'udi'i klama
I, over the course of eternity, during many times which were long intervals,
regularly go.

If you stuck a "za'o" on the end of that messy tense, it would modify the
last implied interval, giving
... which were long intervals, regularly keep going too long.

This is a bit mind boggling, even if you get past the concept of eternally
going (wandering Jew, perhaps???)

lojbab