From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:46:05 2010
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Thu Dec 21 11:55:21 1995
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
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: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 21 11:55:21 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Message-ID: <pTo8cZHeAtI.A.k2F.tu0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> > 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