sera'aku le'ala'ezo PLI mezoigy. not yet gy.

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

> I think that is why my version works - it considers already to be
> "in the aftermath of not-yet-having gone" - the implication being that
> "not yet" = "pu'o" (on the assumption that the event really will take place),
> and "already" is just the aftermath of "not yet".

I think that "already" is ambiguous.  It can mean both the event has started
and the event has been completed.

For the event which has started we have "ba'o pu'o" and for the event which
has been completed "ba'o mo'u".  A lot of the problems with "already" is that
the solution for one is not the solution for the other and the other is
immediately used as the counter-example.

So,
    .i mi ba'opu'o klama
    I am already going.  (The going has started and is continuing).

    .i mi ba'omo'u klama
    I have already gone.  (The going has been completed and is no longer
                           occurring).

I think there is a germane problem with "yet"/"not yet"/"finally"/"at last".

ni'o co'omi'e dn.