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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:38:23 PDT

la and cusku di'e

>We've already agreed that
>"still" could be rendered by a brivla, so this discussion
>is about whether you can say what you want using ZAhO.

I agreed {stali} was a pretty good brivla for "still".
I haven't found a good one for "already" though. {tolstali}?
{clira}?

>If I
>had my way then most redudant cmavo would be abolished,
>though, including ZAhO.

If I had mine I would abolish lots of selmaho too, but
I don't think I would start with ZAhO.

> > But za'o is permitted with non-telics too, so the
> > generalization to "still" is the next step.
>
>I think {za'o broda} entails that broda is telic, just as {mo'u}
>does. So if {broda} is not normally telic, the interpreter has
>to seek an interpretation where broda is telic.

In seeking that interpretation is that I usually run into
"still".

>You have this ideal conception of what Lojban ought to be like,
>from a user's perspective, and struggle and struggle to find ways
>to make Lojban yield some realization of this conception. To me,
>Lojban is how it is, and you like it or lump it.

To me Lojban will be what we make it. If you try to use it
I think you have to realise that at least for now and in some
sense Lojban still isn't.

co'o mi'e xorxes

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