From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Apr 02 11:10:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 18:10:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 55810 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 18:10:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 18:10:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.176) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 18:10:14 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:10:13 -0700 Received: from 200.41.210.10 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:10:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.10] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: NU Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:10:13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2001 18:10:13.0436 (UTC) FILETIME=[29A737C0:01C0BBA0] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >So, >pu le nu mi ciska "Before I write" >is ambiguous among at least the following, some of which probably make a >difference: >pu le mu'e mi ciska "before I wrote" (which itself is ambiguous between >"first wrote" and "finished writing [it]") I'm not sure that your understanding of {mu'e} agrees with the explanation given in the book. I don't doubt that yours fits closer to the standard meaning of "achievment", but in Lojbanic lore technical terms tend to wander off into whole new meanings. I think that according to Book-Lojban {le mu'e mi ciska} cannot be taken to mean {le nu mi co'a ciska} or {le nu mi mu'o ciska}. {pu le mu'e mi ciska} would have to be before my whole writing, taken as a point event, never as a reference to one specific point of the writing event. >pu le pu'u mi ciska "before I was writing [it]" >pu le zu'o mi ciska "before I was writing" >pu le za'i mi ciska "before I was a writer" >The distinction could probably be made in other ways with just {nu} but the >additions would then become obligatory for that meaning. I guess I can imagine subtle distinctions there, but for example I don't think that {za'i} introduces the idea of profession that the English "writer" has. And the {se ciska} is implied in all three cases, you can talk about {le zu'o mi ciska le vi cukta} as well as {le pu'u mi ciska le vi cukta}. (We are using {ciska} where we should be using {finti}, I now realize.) I continue being skeptical that these subtle variations add much. >le ka le skani cu blanu is a property of space time areas, at least. That makes sense: {le ka le tsani be ce'u cu blanu}. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.