Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA03445 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:35:05 +0200 Message-Id: <199512212235.AAA03445@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 6912C216 ; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 23:35:01 +0100 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 11:28:15 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: sera'aku le'ala'ezo PLI mezoigy. not yet gy. X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 667 Lines: 17 > > i ki'u ma lu na co'a li'u naku smuni zoi gy no longer gy ? > > How about "mi ba'o na'e klama"? "I since am other-than going". That's "I'm in the aftermath of non-going" i.e "I am going". But there is no indication of alreadyness. You might just as well say "mi ca'o klama". Why would "mi ba'o na'e klama" be any closer to "I'm already going" than to "I'm still going"? It only says that I'm going, after having been non-going. > What is the scope of "na" and should we not be using "na'e" for negating the > bridi? {naku} has cope over the following sumti, not over the preceding ones. Probably you are right that {na'e} would be better in most cases. Jorge