Subject: RE: [lojban] Opposite of za'o

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:31:20 PDT

la and cusku di'e

> > za'o - "still"
> > pu'o - "not yet"
> > ca'o - "already"
> > ba'o - "no longer"
>
> still = "ca'o, not ba'o"
> not yet = "pu'o, not ca'o"
> already = "ca'o, not pu'o"
> no longer = "ba'o, not ca'o"

Ok, that's nice. I was not yet considering the contrasts
at that point.

>Presumably "ca'o, not ba'o" can quite easily be rendered into
>Lojban, and I seem to recall this already having been done in
>your exchange with Ivan.

No, I think we hadn't discussed {ca'o jenai ba'o}. Of all the
non-za'o proposals, this one is the one I like best. I still
feel it is missing an indication that the first part is the
actual claim and the second part is the denial of the
presupposition, but maybe that's too much to ask for.

>But the only reason why the continuation of za'o broda is
>unexpected is that events that instantiate a telic event type
>*normally* cease once the telic event type has been instantiated.

Exactly. But za'o is permitted with non-telics too, so the
generalization to "still" is the next step.

>I think you're going down the garden path with za'o. The solution
>to your requirements is Ivan's -- the one I've given above.

Maybe you're right. I really don't like {je} with tenses,
but I will keep it in mind.

[natural end vs. completion]
>But those concepts aren't implied if you think in terms of "intrinsic
>boundaries", i.e. an event counterpart of the count/mass distinction
>we're familiar with from English nouns (though not from Lojban selbri).

Very nice parallel!

>Put another way, it is no coincidence that in words for beginnings
>there is no counterpart of the stop/finish distinction.

start/commencement?

Is it just a matter of telic/non-telic?

co'o mi'e xorxes

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com