From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:38 2010 Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list Date: Fri Dec 22 05:59:32 1995 From: Don Wiggins Subject: sera'aku le'ala'ezo PLI mezoigy. not yet gy. To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 22 05:59:32 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: > I think that is why my version works - it considers already to be > "in the aftermath of not-yet-having gone" - the implication being that > "not yet" = "pu'o" (on the assumption that the event really will take place), > and "already" is just the aftermath of "not yet". I think that "already" is ambiguous. It can mean both the event has started and the event has been completed. For the event which has started we have "ba'o pu'o" and for the event which has been completed "ba'o mo'u". A lot of the problems with "already" is that the solution for one is not the solution for the other and the other is immediately used as the counter-example. So, .i mi ba'opu'o klama I am already going. (The going has started and is continuing). .i mi ba'omo'u klama I have already gone. (The going has been completed and is no longer occurring). I think there is a germane problem with "yet"/"not yet"/"finally"/"at last". ni'o co'omi'e dn.