Hard to say without context, but maybe something like "they were at it for a while, at that time".

zo'e = they, he/she/it, I, we, you
co'e = do, do it, be at it, be it, etc.
ca = at that time, then, at this time, now
ze'a = for a while

The second ca would contrast ze'aca with:

ze'apu: they had been at it for a while at that point

ze'aba: they would be at it for a while from that point on

>>386

mi ca ze'ica cusku dei
or
mi ca ze'ipu cusku dei

How does the first "ca" get influenced by the "ze'ica" or "ze'ipu" combination. How does the "se'i" get influenced by the word of selma'o PU?

How is each step broken down? Preferably in colloqial English and the verbatim translation.

Thanks

>>387

Let's use "bajra" (run) which makes more sense to specify a duration for than "cusku".

mi pu ze'i pu bajra
I past for-a-little-while had-been running
I had been running for a bit.

mi pu ze'i ca bajra
I past for-a-little-while was-then running
I was running for a bit.

mi pu ze'i ba bajra
I past for-a-little-while went-on-to run
I went on to run for a bit.

mi ca ze'i pu bajra
I present for-a-little-while have-been running
I have been running for a bit.

mi ca ze'i ca bajra
I present for-a-little-while am-now running
I run for a bit.

mi ca ze'i ba bajra
I present for-a-little-while go-on-to run
I go on to run for a bit.

mi ba ze'i pu bajra
I future for-a-little-while will-have-been running
I will have been running for a bit.

mi ba ze'i ca bajra
I future for-a-little-while will-be-then running
I will be running for a bit.

mi ba ze'i ba bajra
I future for-a-little-while will-go-on-to run
I will then go on to run for a bit.

I'm not sure the colloquial versions are ideal, I'll leave that to a native speaker of English. In any case, such compound tenses are not much used in Lojban. The first pu/ca/ba is likely to be left to context, and the second one is almost never needed. {mi ze'i bajra} is much more likely, with the context determining whether the short run happened in the past, is happening now, or will in the future.

>>388

So the tense word after "ze'i" shows in which "direction" the span of time is going? But, how could it be directioned toward the past? Or present?

The first tense tells when the whole span of time was, no?

>>387

I meant "ze'i", not "se'i". By the way.

>>391

ca/pu/ba are always relative: at-the-same-time-as/before/after.

The present is often the reference point, in which case they give now/in-the-past/in-the-future.

In the case of ZEhA PU, PU indicates the orientation of the interval from wherever the first PU took you. It can only be oriented with respect to that time, not with respect to the present.

(Not sure if that answers the question.)

>>393

So with "pu ze'apu", it says that in the past, at a time designated Tp, something happened for awhile in the past of Tp (though, it may have also continued on until or into the future of Tp, as well).

"ba ze'ica" means that in the future, at a time designated Tf, something (an event) will have been happenning for a little while in the past, present, and future of Tf (since it is oriented around/on Tf, but must have a span of time. Tf is some point in the middle of the span of time).

>>402

Right. (In the first case, Tp would be the end point of the interval.)

>>405

.ua .a'u

So, the time specified by the first PU is the end point if it is "zo pu" (it does not continue into the future), a point in the middle if "zo ca", and beginning point if "zo ba".

Interesting.