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! Padraic > 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.