From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Tue Aug 27 16:24:39 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 17jphM-0001Jb-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:24:36 -0700
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g7RNTTIC016456
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:29:29 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g7RNTS9L016455
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:29:28 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:29:28 -0500
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: Re: [lojban] Again/next?
Message-ID: <20020827232928.GA16424@allusion.net>
References: <F2570b5wx0E5JLOA2pH000077bb@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F2570b5wx0E5JLOA2pH000077bb@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-archive-position: 823
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:54:53PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la camgusmis cusku di'e
>=20
> >Well, given a hypothetical member of PA that meant 'more than the
> >current amount by N, defaults to 1', call it xa'u, we could do xa'uru'e,
> >could we not?
>=20
> No, that would still mean "again". To see the difference more
> clearly, change to another predicate that does not itself
> include the idea of "more" the way "do better" does. Let's say
> "I'll read this again" vs "I'll read this next time".
>=20
>      mi ba za'ure'u tcidu ti
>      I'll read this again.
>      (I have read it, I will for another time.)
>=20
>      ca le krefu mi ba tcidu ti
>      Next time I'll read this.
>      (Probably I did not read it this time.)
>=20
> "Next time" does not refer to a repetition of "I read this".
> It refers to a repetition of the background/conditions.
> Next time I'm here, or next time I see the book, etc.
> Certainly not "next time I read this, I'll read this".

What do you think of using something like "bavla'i" in a tanru?

	mi bavla'i tcidu ti
	I'll future-adjacent read this
	I'll read this next time;

--=20
Jordan DeLong
fracture@allusion.net


--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9bAtYDrrilS51AZ8RAiVMAKCioLi+do/65SAD96/LdJhfRhbEjACfRjS5
XpFtEFV/Dg8AR2EVTKgtZRI=
=m5Zh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn--