From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jul 15 09:31:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15212 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2000 16:31:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jul 2000 16:31:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.170) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jul 2000 16:31:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 87590 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jul 2000 16:31:20 -0000 Message-ID: <20000715163120.87589.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.163 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:31:20 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.163] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] Opposite of za'o Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:31:20 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 3620 la and cusku di'e > > za'o - "still" > > pu'o - "not yet" > > ca'o - "already" > > ba'o - "no longer" > > still = "ca'o, not ba'o" > not yet = "pu'o, not ca'o" > already = "ca'o, not pu'o" > no longer = "ba'o, not ca'o" Ok, that's nice. I was not yet considering the contrasts at that point. >Presumably "ca'o, not ba'o" can quite easily be rendered into >Lojban, and I seem to recall this already having been done in >your exchange with Ivan. No, I think we hadn't discussed {ca'o jenai ba'o}. Of all the non-za'o proposals, this one is the one I like best. I still feel it is missing an indication that the first part is the actual claim and the second part is the denial of the presupposition, but maybe that's too much to ask for. >But the only reason why the continuation of za'o broda is >unexpected is that events that instantiate a telic event type >*normally* cease once the telic event type has been instantiated. Exactly. But za'o is permitted with non-telics too, so the generalization to "still" is the next step. >I think you're going down the garden path with za'o. The solution >to your requirements is Ivan's -- the one I've given above. Maybe you're right. I really don't like {je} with tenses, but I will keep it in mind. [natural end vs. completion] >But those concepts aren't implied if you think in terms of "intrinsic >boundaries", i.e. an event counterpart of the count/mass distinction >we're familiar with from English nouns (though not from Lojban selbri). Very nice parallel! >Put another way, it is no coincidence that in words for beginnings >there is no counterpart of the stop/finish distinction. start/commencement? Is it just a matter of telic/non-telic? co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com