From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 16 13:44:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29303 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2000 20:44:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Jun 2000 20:44:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2000 20:44:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.3a.6926f8f (4554) for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3a.6926f8f.267bebc2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:44:50 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Mi za'o klama 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 In a message dated 00-06-16 14:37:12 EDT, xorxes writes: << If what used to be the destination is no longer the destination, then the relationship is no longer going on, and za'o does not apply. >> I think the point is that Pineville still is the *destination* but not the place he is going to end up -- at least unless he turns around. Suppose he stops off in Charlotte; his destination is still Pineville but he has stopped short of it and that is the (nearly mirror to za'o){mi co'u klama la painvil la ralix} or (more completely) {mi klama la painvil la ralix co'u la carlyt} If a person uses {za'o} in the original sentence then he is, admittedly, continuing the same relation, but that relation does not depend on where he ends up.