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.