From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:46:08 2010
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Fri Dec 22 03:43:50 1995
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
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: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 22 03:43:50 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Message-ID: <y3Is7T6ZiRC.A.C6F.wu0kLB@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.

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