From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jul 02 09:48:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10725 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2000 16:48:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Jul 2000 16:48:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2000 16:48:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 53288 invoked by uid 0); 2 Jul 2000 16:48:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000702164851.53287.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.32.23.66 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 02 Jul 2000 09:48:51 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.32.23.66] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: opposite of za'o Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 09:48:51 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la pier cusku di'e >Well, according to jbofi'e, "fe'e nanca" isn't grammatical either. jbofi'e is correct. In any case, {fe'e nanca} is a bit strange for {lumna'a}. It is really giving a spatial setting to the nanca relationship, which is not the same as turning it into a spatial measure. A year might be different in different locations, even non-relativistically, so it does make sense to give it spatial tenses. >As to "fe'efe'e", I figured that time is real, the space dimensions are the >three imaginaries, i, j, and k, and i^2=-1, so "fe'efe'e" turns positive >time >into negative time. It does make sense mathematically, but I can't bend my mind around it linguistically... co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com