John Cowan wrote:

> Roger Mills scripsit:
> > alandani < alo 'from' anju 'time,moment' + tani, gen. of tayu 'this'; in
> > proper written work it requires a future tense:
> > alandani mameloto re me ilepes 'lowis' "Henceforth I wish to be called
> > Lois"
> > (lit. ...I-want-fut that me they-call Lois-- I suppose one could say
> > _ilepesto_, too, with a future tense.)
> That last point is a question of sequence of tenses.  Does Kash say
> "I will want that they will call me Lois", where the tense in the
> subordinate clause is absolute, or does it say "I will want that they
> call-PRES me Lois", where the tense in the subordinate clause is relative
> to the tense in the main clause?

Interesting point, which I probably have not fully thought through.  But
practice suggests that they prefer the _relative_ -- consequently,
..mamelo/to re me _ilepes/to_... is gilding the lily, redundant, and
probably hoity-toity fancy-pants usage.

Of course, as I said, the future is required only in formal written usage;
colloq. and in informal writing you could eliminate the tense marking
altogether, and rely on _alandani_ for the future sense.

It seems to me that the verb 'want' at least implies futurity in its
complement clause; other verbs of desiring/wishing and reporting do not
necessarily, and would require sequence of tense for clarity.