'What does nau ko'a broda mean? Does it just mean "temporally or spatially coincident with ko'a, broda"? I don't think it should. Rather, pe'i ko'a should specify the time and place of dei (e.g. for the benefit of hearers/readers not present at the time and place of dei).' --And
That's what nau does as a tense: "the speaker's current reference point", CLL says. "temporally or spatially coincident with ko'a, broda" is identical to cabu'e ko'a broda, and ca is not nau. So obviously it should mean that; why would this be controversial? --- nitcion.
Because on CAhA as sumtcita, Adam takes a different view (of nau as
sumtcita). If there is no controversey, then so much the better! --And
Oh. I see now. Adam, can you confirm your position in the following?
So, by And, nau is used as in:
.i mi goi la nitcion. pu cliva le merko ca li 2001 nau li 2002
("I left the States in 2001; this is 2002)
By Adam, nau resets the ref point from speaker time to something else. So what would this mean?
.i mi goi la nitcion pu cliva le merko ca li 2001 nau li 2002
What would nau li 2003 mean? Or nau li 1973? I mean, it could be shifting the deictic centre, as in:
.i mi ba cliva le merko nau li 2000
"In 2000, I was still going to leave the U.S."
But that's pointless: we shift deictic centres using compound tenses, and ki: .i caki li 2000, mi ba cliva. No, I think And's right on this one. Unless Adam cares to expound further...