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 KAA04975 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 10:25:38 +0200 Message-Id: <199512220825.KAA04975@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id EB7C7B3F ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 9:25:38 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 03:24:47 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: sera'aku le'ala'ezo PLI mezoigy. not yet gy. X-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 716 Lines: 16 >> > 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. 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". lojbab