Re: TECH: Mark Shoulson waiting for a taxi

[Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK>]

> > I think this is another case of sumti-raising.  What you are really
> > waiting for is {lo nu klama lo karcrtaksi}.
> >
> > mi'e .i,n.

la .and. cusku di'e
> True enough, but it doesn't solve the non-specificity problem,
> does it? If the inception of nu klama [fa?] lo karcrtaksi
> happens, but Mark wasn't waiting for it, the utterance could
> still be true, whereas we want it to be false in such a
> circumstance.

I'm sorry, I seem to have lost the thread somewhere.  If

        la mark. denpa lo nu klama fa lo karcrtaksi

how can the event happen without Mark waiting for it?

Perhaps you think this isn't tight enough, and I could probably
agree with that.  I think there are parts of the language that
we don't exercise often enough at the moment, and one of those
is the different flavours of NU, so I usually try and find an
alternative to {nu} itself.  I often find {za'i} works well
for things which are anticipated (desired, waited for etc.),
so perhaps this should be {lo za'i ba'o klama}.

(I'm not sure where the x3 of {denpa} comes in.  Presumably
it's about waiting for a process or activity to reach a
certain point, but I don't know quite how it works.)

This of course leads into Nick's Aktionsarten discussion,
which I want to come in on when I can find time, possibly
in a day or two.

ko jundi le vi kunti
Watch this space! :-)

co'o mi'e .i,n.