From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Jun 15 16:28:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 542 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2000 23:28:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jun 2000 23:28:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.67) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2000 23:28:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 1698 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jun 2000 23:28:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000615232829.1697.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.32.22.161 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:28:29 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.32.22.161] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: mi zo'a klama Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:28:29 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >I take {za'o} to mean over-completion of the the described event -"He kept >on >building the hosue" means he kept building after the house was done. Right, as long as he was still doing some building of the house. >So here >you keep going after Pineville is passed. But he is no longer going _to Pineville_! How can he keep going there if he is no longer going there? I don't think {za'o klama py} can be the same as {klama lo bancu be py}. Predicates with built-in location places are very nasty when mixed with tenses, because the built-in places don't go away. A related problem is that FAhAs can't be used in those places. For example, to say "I go from under the bed to inside the closet" I can't use {ni'a} and {ne'i} for "under" and "inside", I have to use {le cnita be} and {le nenri be}. Similarly, I would think we can't ignore the destination place of {klama}, if something is no longer a destination it shouldn't be said that it keeps on being a destination. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com