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 VAA06842 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 21:18:34 +0200 Message-Id: <199512221918.VAA06842@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 210763E7 ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 20:18:32 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 14:18:11 -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: 1992 Lines: 56 lojbab: > 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". We agreed that {pu'o broda} can be true without the broda actually taking place, so {le bolci ba'o pu'o farlu} = The ball is in the aftermath of being about to fall, because I caught it, not because it is already falling. dn: > I think that "already" is ambiguous. It can mean both the event has started > and the event has been completed. The meaning I want is "happening before the natural/expected start", i.e. the counterpart of {za'o}. If all I wanted to say is that the event has started, them {co'a} works perfectly. > For the event which has started we have "ba'o pu'o" This doesn't work, as I show with the falling ball example. > and for the event which > has been completed "ba'o mo'u". That works, but this is not the meaning I'm interested in. > 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. The first is no solution. > So, > .i mi ba'opu'o klama > I am already going. (The going has started and is continuing). Or "I was about to go but I decided not to". (The anticipated going was not realized, and it is no longer anticipated.) > .i mi ba'omo'u klama > I have already gone. (The going has been completed and is no longer > occurring). Yes, but this is not the meaning I'm after. > I think there is a germane problem with "yet"/"not yet"/"finally"/"at last". "not yet" is {za'o na} = "still not". (Is "yet" ever used in the positive? "I have yet to go" would be {mi za'o pu'o klama", no?) I'm not sure about "finally"/"at last". They seem to mean "starting after the expected time". I don't know how to do it. Jorge