From sentto-44114-1830-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sun Jan 23 12:53:59 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 8485 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2000 12:53:58 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 23 Jan 2000 12:53:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 11252 invoked by uid 40001); 23 Jan 2000 12:55:32 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 11249 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2000 12:55:32 -0000 Received: from hh.egroups.com (208.48.218.10) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 23 Jan 2000 12:55:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1830-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jan 2000 12:55:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 8991 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2000 12:55:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.10.37 with QMQP; 23 Jan 2000 12:55:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.237.249) by 10.1.10.26 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2000 12:55:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 4258 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jan 2000 12:55:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20000123125530.4257.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.55 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:55:30 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.55] To: lojban@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 04:55:30 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: [lojban] Subjunctive? Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Jorge Llambias" > > caba'o citka = has now eaten > > puba'o citka = had eaten > > baba'o citka = will have eaten > > > > Before these aspectuals (ca'o, ba'o, pu'o) were introduced > > to the language, these compound English tenses were translated > > by chained Lojban tenses, but doing that now that we have > > the aspectuals is not really a very good idea. > >An excellent scheme. But it is an innovation upon the Book, not a >clarification of it. The first paragraph of the Book's chapter on tense explicity says that it doesn't deal with the question of how best to translate a given English tense. Here I am suggesting that the tense+aspectual combination is a better translation than the tense+tense combination. I agree that this is not a clarification of anything in the Book, but it is not in contradiction with it either, is it? co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests! Sign up for eLerts at: Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com