From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 01 17:55:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14556 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2000 00:55:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Jul 2000 00:55:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.1) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2000 00:55:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.b2.752b21b (4232) for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 20:55:48 EDT Subject: RE: Opposite of za'o 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 Well, I am not sure you can keep making a point when its natural ending time seems not to have come -- namely when your interlocutor gets it (I am also unsure that you can keep on making a point that you have only said once -- in a parenthesis, at that). But, lets see: {za'o, ba'o, pu'o, ca'o} span time, the first two from a stopping point (natural though unused in the first case, actual in the second) , the third up to a (perhaps unrealized) starting point (can we work off the unrealized to get something here -- natural but unused?), the last the span between beginning and end On the other hand, {mo'u, co'u. co'a, co'i, de'a, di'a} are all points, beginnings or endings of events and so have no span. The mirror of {za'o} ought then to be a spanner, covering time up to the natural beginning, as {pu'o} mirrors {ba'o} (minus some differences). But {co'u na} just stops the non-going (say) or starts the going, but does not point to the space between that transition and the natural transition point, which is what "already" is supposed to do -- indeed, once the natural starting point arrives, "he is already going" or whatever no longer applies (mirroring the perfect this time). But {ba'o co'u} doesn't do it quite, since, while we are in the afterglow of the not going, we are in that as long as he goes. What about the the change that happens with the natural starting point, when we have to change from "is" to "was" in English? We're trying to do three points work with two points - {za'o} (and {ba'o}) doesn't have the actual end-point to deal with. We can introduce a convention, I suppose, but it seems to need more theoretical frame than it has so far. The only one I see is that what is perfected is the stopping SHORT of the not-going and that might reasonably cease to exist when it was no longer short, i.e., at the natural stopping place. By parity of reasoning (or "parody"), the mirror of {co'u} should be a point and {za'o na} gives a span. In this case, however, what we want is probably the span: "still not going". And the end of that (and its aftermath?) is the point (plus a perfective again?) "finally/at last" (? {co'u za'o na}?) English would use the achievative to announce the start and then go to past, but that may be peculiar. Or it may use the progressive, somewhat strangely. OK. Now if you have to say it again, it is keeping on.