Re: TECH: situation types

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

And:
> > More or less related: does {jimpe} mean being in a state of understanding
> > something, or does it mean to come to understand something?
> Strictly speaking, there is no official sumti place for the event
> - {jimpe} is better glossed "understander (of)". I think to specify
> the nature of the event you'd use {coa jimpe} and {cao jimpe} [begin
> & continue, I mean].

Right, but then {jimpe} must mean "x1 is in the state of understanding x2".

If it meant "x1 comes to undersand x2" then {ca'o jimpe} would mean
"x1 is comimg to understand x2". We can say that using: {ca'o co'a jimpe},
i.e. "x1 is starting to understand x2".

> This is why I think ZAhO work quasitanruishly
> like NAhE. I think I'm in the middle of a discussion with Lojbab on
> this matter.

I agree completely with you on this. I also think that the grammar of
compund tenses may be in need of some fixing. It is far too restrictive.

Consider:

        mi ze'a co'a jimpe

What does that mean? Is it "I am starting to understand (which is taking
me a medium time)", or does it mean "I am at the start of a medium time
of understanding (after which I will no longer understand)."

In my opinion it should mean the first, but I suspect that officially
it means the second. The second I would do with {mi co'a ze'a jimpe},
but that doesn't parse as I want, because {co'a ze'a} is not an allowed
compound tense, so it breaks down to {co'aku ze'a jimpe}.

ZAhOs, ZEhAs and TAhEs should be freely combinable in any order. The
current restriction doesn't make much sense, given that, for example
{co'a jimpe} can have a short, medium, long or no duration, and
{ze'a jimpe} can have a start, an end, an aftermath, etc.

co'a (ze'a jimpe) makes sense, and so does ze'a (co'a jimpe). I don't
see why only one of them is accessible in Lojban.

The same happens with TAhEs: ze'u (di'i bajra) = for a long time runs
regularly, and di'i (ze'u bajra) = regularly runs for long times.
Only one order is allowed, why?

Jorge