From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 30 09:44:13 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 30 Sep 2000 16:44:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 19808 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2000 16:44:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Sep 2000 16:44:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Sep 2000 16:44:12 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id a.69.b1d6b67 (4552) for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <69.b1d6b67.27077258@aol.com> Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 12:44:08 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] {za'o} in space 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 Aulun makes a good point, but, since the cases cited are all propositions of locomotion, the change is not necessary (though clarifying). In locomotion, there is an automatic conversion between space and time, such that (the important case now) going on too long just is going too far and conversely, for the time of completion is defined by reaching a certain point. Going past that point is going on too long, and going on beyond that time is going too far.