From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Oct 01 10:26:22 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 1 Oct 2000 17:26:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 32267 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2000 17:26:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Oct 2000 17:26:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hi.egroups.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2000 17:26:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.208] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Oct 2000 17:26:20 -0000 Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 17:26:16 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: {za'o} in space Message-ID: <8r7s3o+bii8@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <69.b1d6b67.27077258@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1087 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote: > 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. If at all, this is not expressed distinctly in the Book (except in the chapter's nice drawing :) Also the example on p. 233, 12.10) doesn't clear up this fuzziness, in the contrary seems to support my point of view, as it translates: le bloti pu za'o xelklama ("sailed for too *long*", i.e. in time) fe'e ba'o le lalxu ("and beyond the lake", i.e. in space) So the Book's English translation itself seems appropriate, but not the utterance, which I would have expressed by le bloti pu fe'e za'o xelklama (the boat had sailed too far...) ki'e mi'e .aulun.