From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Jul 03 16:45:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24874 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2000 23:45:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Jul 2000 23:45:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.172) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Jul 2000 23:45:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 2658 invoked by uid 0); 3 Jul 2000 23:45:15 -0000 Message-ID: <20000703234515.2657.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.121 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:45:15 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.121] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 16:45:15 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la ivAn cusku di'e >Quite right, but they're not mere aspects either. The pragmatic >content is crucial. Though it's a special sort of `expectation' >that's involved here. It's a case of contrasting the situation >in the world that's being talked about and an alternative one, >but without any commitment as to whether the alternative world >is what either the speaker or the hearer actually expects. That is very nicely put. But the same type of pragmatics that allows us to use {za'o} for events that are not processes should allow us to use whatever the mirror of {za'o} is for the mirror situation. (Trying not to use the English words, because I'm not really interested in the particular words but in the meanings.) > > "still" certainly has a component of "beyond expectation", > > and the expectation is completion for actions that could be > > completed. > >I'm afraid that doesn't follow (and so the rest of the argument >doesn't either). `Is dinner ready? -- No, it's still cooking.' >(Certainly not overcooking.) You're right, it is beyond the expectation of completion, not necessarily beyond the completion itself. In this case the question postulates that completion has been achieved, and "still" is used to negate that postulate. >Emphasis on real-world {ca'o} >({pu'omo'u}, {pu'oco'u}) in contrast to hypothetical {ba'o} >and {za'o}. This is what we need to express. I'm not sure I follow this. {ba'o} and {za'o} are real world too. > > Maybe {za'o} won't do for every single case of "still", > > but mostly it sure does. > >I'm not sure what `mostly' can mean here -- afaik no one has >counted the {za'o}able and un{za'o}able uses of _still_ and >compared the numbers, and without that it would be equally >justified to say `Maybe {za'o} will do for the odd case of >_still_, but mostly it sure doesn't'. (This is not what I >am saying either.) :) Are you implying I am overly emphatic in my appreciations? co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com