From sentto-44114-3521-963161542-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sun Jul 09 16:50:21 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 19540 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 16:50:20 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 16:50:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 14619 invoked by uid 40001); 9 Jul 2000 16:52:23 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 14616 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 16:52:23 -0000 Received: from ho.egroups.com (208.50.99.200) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 16:52:23 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-3521-963161542-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by ho.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Jul 2000 16:52:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 13823 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 16:52:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jul 2000 16:52:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 16:52:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 68633 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jul 2000 16:52:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000709165221.68632.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.153.98 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 09 Jul 2000 09:52:21 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.153.98] To: lojban@egroups.com From: "Jorge Llambias" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 09:52:21 PDT Subject: Re: [lojban] "za'o" & "still" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit la ivAn cusku di'e >I suppose that depends on what you mean by `affinity'. It may well >be true that `still' is usually applicable where {za'o} is. >(A similar affinity probably exists between {pu'o} and `not yet', >and between {ba'o} and `no longer'.) I don't see a similar affinity there because neither {pu'o} nor {ba'o} have the "against expectations" component that {za'o} does have (indeed {pu'o} has in a sense the opposite expectation) and that "still", "not yet", "no longer" and "already" share. > > If "still" is mainly pragmatic then I see no problem in its > > coopting the purely semantic {za'o}. > >I do. We may want to combine `still' with other members of ZAhO, >viz., {pu'o} and {ca'o}. But we can combine them: le djacu za'o pu'o febvi "The water is still about to boil." (It has been on the verge of boiling for too long.) la djan pu'o za'o pinxe John is about to be overdrinking. I can't see a lot of difference between {za'o ca'o}, {ca'o za'o} and {za'o} by itself though. > > But {le nu broda} is not the presupposition. Saying > > {le nu broda cu ranji} is similar to {ca'o broda}. > >Doesn't `continue' imply `as before'? Yes, but {ranji} does not mean "continues" in the sense of "goes on", it means "is continuous over". The English keyword is again misleading. >So what is the difference between {ranji} `continue' and {stali} >`remain'? As I understand it, `remain' = `continue to be'. I think {ranji} does not refer to a continuation from past to present. If it refers to time at all, it means continuity over a whole interval, not of a given moment with respect to previous ones. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Make new friends, find the old at Classmates.com: http://click.egroups.com/1/5530/4/_/17627/_/963161542/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com