On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> > "Me-PAST make me-PRESENT broke"
>> > "Me-FUTURE make me-PRESENT broke"
>> >
>> > I, who was there in past, make me, who am here now, broke.
>> >
>> > I, who will be in the future, make me, who am here now, broke.

>> I mentioned before that, for me, this doesn't make sense
>> because a future action, assuming the normal flow of time, can't
>> affect the future's past, which is our present. Thus, future-me can not
>> make present-me broke.
> I don't have a problem with it.  But then I'm reading it more idiomatically
> as something like "My future plans have earmarked all my money, and thus, if
> I am to do X in the future, I have no remening money for doing other things
> in the present."  So as an example of where I might find this construction
> useful --

Hm. Well, I see the sense in what you're saying, but I don't understand what
you're saying and what Ray said to be the same precise thing. As I read your
example, your present self is still flush with cash. You just have it earmarked
for a particular future use. It will still be your posterior-future
self that your
anterior-future self will cause to go broke!


> I am planning to go to the Texas State Fair next weekend to enjoy the food
> and watch the dancing, hear the Killdares and maybe buy a hat or two, thus
> if a friend were to come up to me and say "Hey, you want to go get something
> to eat?" I coud reply, "Me-FUT make me-PRES broke." indicating that while
> the money may in fact be present to go get something to eat, if I use it for
> that, my future plan in ruined.
> Adam


En matinamver na, IC pirperato sarccim pros iscôm mathêtes; ett’ ica
pejeito adis nesser:
acco, qouem mi moulvaniccere pros vassermet, qouem, moulvaniccere vas
itan pros al pouvres.

One morning, Jesus prepared food for his disciples; and he said to
them: look, what I do for you,
that, you do it for the poor.