Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: mi zo'a klama

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:50:17 PDT

la pier cusku di'e

>I think that the natural end of going to Pineville is Pineville,

The natural end of the going is not Pineville but the arrival there.

>so "mi za'o
>klama py" means "I go past P". The difference between "za'o klama" and 
>"klama
>lo bancu" is that in the former, you intended to stop but kept going, which 
>the
>latter does not imply.

That would work if {mi} was the only argument of the relationship.
But {klama} has five arguments, and you can't claim that the
relationship still holds between them when it no longer does.

>If you want to specify where you actually end up, you can say "mi klama la 
>Rak
>Xil za'o le nu mi klama la Painvil". (I was going to say "klamu'o", but 
>that
>would imply that the going was complete at RH, which it wasn't - it was
>complete at P, but I kept going.)

That is better, I think. It still deos not justify the other one.

>For "I keep going out of habit", I would say "mi za'o ta'e klama" - "mi 
>ta'e
>za'o klama" would mean "I am in the habit of going too far".

I agree that is more precise, yes. But it doesn't justify the
"past Pineville" interpretation.

>To distinguish "I went past Pineville" from "I took too long to get to
>Pineville", you could say "mi fe'e za'o klama la Painvil" for the former.

This one might work. Without {fe'e}, for me, it doesn't.

co'o mi'e xorxes

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com