From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 16 07:44:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4378 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 14:43:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 14:43:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r20.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.162) by mta2 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 14:43:11 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.e8.5d021bf (4558) for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:43:06 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Mi za'o klama To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 3101 In a message dated 00-06-15 18:20:38 EDT, xorxes writes (quoting pier): << >Ru'a mi za'o klama la Painvil la Ralix. Without further context, my first interpretation is that you are still going from R to P even though one would expect that you no longer make that trip. For example, if you live in R and used to work in P but you no longer work there, then you may still be going from R to P every day, maybe you just can't shake the habit. Another possible context I can think of is this: the trip from R to P normally takes 20 minutes. You left R two hours ago but you run into a major trafic jam and so you are still stuck on the road. So you are still going from R to P, well past the natural ending point of the event. >> Yes, these are two pretty good contextless thoughts, the first maybe more natural than the second (the goal is defined, so to speak, by destination not time). In both cases, the natural ending could be specified to clarify. This is also the case with contextualized version. I would put the second case -- goes on to Pineville though aiming at Charlotte -- as {mi klama la painvil la ralix za'o la charlyt} <<>Did I go past Pineville and wind up in >Rock Hill, or did I go all the way through Charlotte and find myself in >Pineville? I can't really get either of those meanings. If you went past Pineville, why would you say that you are still on your way to Pineville, or that you keep going there? It doesn't sound right to me.>> After the natural end (completion) of a process, the continuation is of some dominant activity in the process, in the case of going to, traveling -- but it may be described still process terms. A man who set out to build a house and then, when the house is built, starts building other things miles away, can be said to keep on building, even though he is no longer building the same house (a weak case, I admit, but there are surely some good ones). Notice that the sentence does not say he is on his way to Pineville, only that Pineville is the destination of his going, {za'o} then says that he has passed his detination (natural end point).