From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:46:15 2010
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Fri Dec 22 14:53:25 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: Fri Dec 22 14:53:25 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Message-ID: <JmrDKqHSksG.A.cBG.3u0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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