Minimiscience's view is the one described in chapter 10 of the online
draft reference grammar. Is this other reimagining of ZI and VA widely
used? It breaks the {<tag> broda} == {<tag> ku broda} identity that
holds for everything else.
Don't termsets solve the problem of asking for a magnitude? e.g.
{PU/FAhA nu'i da lu'a ma nu'u}
N.B.: Before looking it up, I would have guessed you could ask
{PU/FAhA cu'e broda} and hope for a response from ZI/VI, but the
refgram says that ("The only way to combine {cu'e} with other tense
cmavo is through logical connection"). Why? What would it break to
allow cu'e in a compound tense?
2010/2/25 Jorge Llambías <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Minimiscience <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Really? I thought "{zi ma}" meant "a short time from what?" by analogy to
>> "{vi
>> ma}."
>
> There are two different views on that. I prefer to use ZI/VA to tag
> the magnitude of displacement from the origin (they are after all
> magnitude of displacement tags.) The other view is to use them to tag
> the origin, like PU/FAhA. But then you have no easy way of tagging the
> magnitude of displacement.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>
