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 MAA05329 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 12:41:51 +0200 Message-Id: <199512221041.MAA05329@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id DD290C62 ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 11:41:15 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 10:41:14 GMT Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: sera'aku le'ala'ezo PLI mezoigy. not yet gy. To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 986 Lines: 24 > 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.