From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jul 01 16:28:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31475 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2000 23:28:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Jul 2000 23:28:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.146) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Jul 2000 23:28:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 21531 invoked by uid 0); 1 Jul 2000 23:28:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000701232802.21530.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.32.23.244 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 01 Jul 2000 16:28:02 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.32.23.244] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 16:28:02 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >But I think that "no longer" does not fit {ba'oco'u} well, since the >English >does not imply that he quit early, merely that he is out of the habit -- or >maybe just doesn't do it any more. I don't really want an exact match for English "no longer". I want the fourth leg of the "still-already-not yet-no longer" quadrangle, which of course has to have the actual vs natural contrast. >I am even unsure about the {ba'o} part -- >is this really an aftermath or is it just being after? What lingers of the >original? The original is precisely what is being talked about. I don't just want to say that some action was happening in the past. I want to say that right now some action that naturally should still be taking place isn't. >{co'u na} is awfully tempting for the "already" of premature action, >though, >the mirror of {za'o}. I keep making the point that {co'u} marks a turning point, not an extended period. You don't think that is an important distinction? But if {co'u} does indeed include the "prematureness" component, then {ba'o co'u na} is indeed "already", the aftermath of the premature finish of inaction. But it is almost as complicated as {na za'o na}. >This "not yet" = "still not," which is clearer as things are developing, >though it does seem to be creeping toward "finally". But "not yet/still not" is a clearly distinct aspect from "at last/finally". The first is a period of inaction, the second is the period of action that follows the period of inaction. >"At last/finally" is >combines the fact of getting under way with the notion of delay, so I think >it needs to include {co'a} or, given the negatives in the ongoing part, >{mo'u/co'u}. I'm being repetitive, but co'a or mo'u/co'u would do for the turning point, but not for the period that starts there. I think {ba'o za'o na} is "finally". The aftermath of the overextended inaction. >Can these critters get joined by jeks? Yes, but how would that help here? >What is the other "already/still" contrast? One contrast goes through "not yet", the other goes through "no longer". They are diagonally opposite in the negations square, that's all I meant by them having two contrasts. "still" "already not=no longer" happens doesn't happen unnatural stop unnatural stop "still not=not yet" "already" doesn't happen happens unnatural start unnatural start Outside negation only changes happening to not happening. Inside negation also changes start to stop (the start of an action is the end of the not-action, and viceversa). co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com