From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 01 16:41:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19757 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2000 23:41:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Jul 2000 23:41:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.9) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Jul 2000 23:41:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.d0.7ed3df2 (4321) for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 19:41:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 19:41:50 EDT Subject: RE: Opposite of za'o 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: 3360 pier: <> I don't follow; the reasoning suggests that {fe'efe'e} turns space into time or else into whatever comes next (the funny little dimension that is all curled up?). I am well on the way to being convinced by xorxes that the right way to do those mirror images are by the forms of the complement event: {mi co'u NA klama} "I already go" and {mi za'o NA klama} "I not go yet" The problems to be ironed out (in my mind, anyhow) are whether this is legal placement of the negation with the intended differentiated meaning and how to work the sumti tcita: is {mi na kala co'u x} "I already had left when x" or "I went when x which was before it was reasonable to go." This goes back to whether the trip to Pineville was an overshooting of Charlotte or the trip to Charlotte got overshot to Pineville -- common sense (i.e., English inuition?) says one thing (the second), the record from the last round seems to say the other.