Ok, so the difference between:
broda .ibabo brode
and
broda .ibaku brode
Is that the first one is saying that {brode} happens after {broda} and the
second one is saying that {brode} happens after (?) default of the speakers
present?
I'm probably being a little intentionally thick here. The first time I saw
{.ibabo} I tried to figure it out on my own and got incredibly confused when
I got to the cmavo {bo}. Everything prior to that made sense; [new
sentence][in the future][tanru short scope link] ?!?!?! Why was it decided
to use an already used cmavo for this convention of {.i<cmavo>bo}? It seems
to me like one of the most non-conventional parts of the language at this
point. Or is {bo} supposed to be more general in some way that it actually
makes sense to use it in this other way?
2010/3/23 Jorge Llambías <[email protected]>
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM, chris kerr <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Why was this xoxes? If "pu" had equaled "fi'o purci" it seems like
> > everything would have been more intuitive. Personally I find it odd
> > that the sumti that "pu" eats (when it's not in front of a selbri), is
> > what's in the future.
>
> I think it's actually quite intuitive that "pu ko'a" has the meaning
> of "purci ko'a", i.e. "broda pu ko'a" = "lo nu broda cu purci ko'a".
> For me it's "mu'i ko'a" not being "mukti ko'a" that is less intuitive.
>
> As for the reasons why PU and BAI ended up different, the way it was
> explained to me is basically that they started from different places.
> PU was originally just a selbri tcita, and its extension as a sumti
> tcita came later. BAI started as sumti tcita, and it was later
> extended to selbri tcita. Also, BAIs were associated with a gismu so
> that they could be converted with SE to get each of the arguments, and
> for that to work properly the argument that it tagged had to be the x1
> of the associated gismu rather than the x2. PU (and other "tenses")
> are not strictly associated with a gismu and cannot be converted with
> SE. In fact, not every "tense" has an obvious gismu to go with it, and
> while FAhAs do generally follow the pattern of PU ("ne'i" = "fi'o se
> nenri", "zu'a" = "fi'o se zunle", etc.) sometimes they don't ("fa'a" =
> "fi'o farna", "zo'i" = "fi'o ?????").
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>
