Mi za'o klama
Pierre Abbat
Rock Hill, or did I go all the way through Charlotte and find myself in
Pineville?
phma
py...@aol.com
<<>goes on to Pineville though aiming at Charlotte -- as {mi klama la
>painvil la ralix za'o la charlyt}
No, that means "I go from Raleigh to Pineville when Charlotte has outlived
its
usefulness." >>
RECORD:za'o
What is gone beyond is anything that would be expected to end what in fact
continues. In processes, this is most naturally the completion of the
product, but destroying the machinery, for example, also will do. For states
and activities (I don't think achievements can go on overtime since they
don't go on at all), anything will do: presumed interruptions, length of
time, ... *The most useful task for za'o as a sumti tag is, therefore, to
indicate the obstacle overcome (or ignored) in the ongoing.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTO & HOME INSURANCE -- LOWEST RATES & BEST COVERAGE. Get dozens of the
best agents competing for your business with our new FREE service.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5568/3/_/17627/_/961190133/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Jorge Llambias
la pier cusku di'e
>Ru'a mi za'o klama la Painvil la Ralix.
Without further context, my first interpretation is that
you are still going from R to P even though one would
expect that you no longer make that trip. For example,
if you live in R and used to work in P but you no longer
work there, then you may still be going from R to P every
day, maybe you just can't shake the habit.
Another possible context I can think of is this: the trip
from R to P normally takes 20 minutes. You left R two hours
ago but you run into a major trafic jam and so you are
still stuck on the road. So you are still going from R to P,
well past the natural ending point of the event.
>Did I go past Pineville and wind up in
>Rock Hill, or did I go all the way through Charlotte and find myself in
>Pineville?
I can't really get either of those meanings. If you went
past Pineville, why would you say that you are still on your
way to Pineville, or that you keep going there? It doesn't
sound right to me.
co'o mi'e xorxes
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
py...@aol.com
<< If what used
to be the destination is no longer the destination, then the
relationship is no longer going on, and za'o does not apply. >>
I think the point is that Pineville still is the *destination* but not the
place he is going to end up -- at least unless he turns around. Suppose he
stops off in Charlotte; his destination is still Pineville but he has stopped
short of it and that is the (nearly mirror to za'o){mi co'u klama la painvil
la ralix} or (more completely) {mi klama la painvil la ralix co'u la carlyt}
If a person uses {za'o} in the original sentence then he is, admittedly,
continuing the same relation, but that relation does not depend on where he
ends up.
py...@aol.com
<< >Ru'a mi za'o klama la Painvil la Ralix.
Without further context, my first interpretation is that
you are still going from R to P even though one would
expect that you no longer make that trip. For example,
if you live in R and used to work in P but you no longer
work there, then you may still be going from R to P every
day, maybe you just can't shake the habit.
Another possible context I can think of is this: the trip
from R to P normally takes 20 minutes. You left R two hours
ago but you run into a major trafic jam and so you are
still stuck on the road. So you are still going from R to P,
well past the natural ending point of the event. >>
Yes, these are two pretty good contextless thoughts, the first maybe more
natural than the second (the goal is defined, so to speak, by destination not
time). In both cases, the natural ending could be specified to clarify.
This is also the case with contextualized version. I would put the second
case -- goes on to Pineville though aiming at Charlotte -- as {mi klama la
painvil la ralix za'o la charlyt}
<<>Did I go past Pineville and wind up in
>Rock Hill, or did I go all the way through Charlotte and find myself in
>Pineville?
I can't really get either of those meanings. If you went
past Pineville, why would you say that you are still on your
way to Pineville, or that you keep going there? It doesn't
sound right to me.>>
After the natural end (completion) of a process, the continuation is of some
dominant activity in the process, in the case of going to, traveling -- but
it may be described still process terms. A man who set out to build a house
and then, when the house is built, starts building other things miles away,
can be said to keep on building, even though he is no longer building the
same house (a weak case, I admit, but there are surely some good ones).
Notice that the sentence does not say he is on his way to Pineville, only
that Pineville is the destination of his going, {za'o} then says that he has
passed his detination (natural end point).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
Host your next egroup meeting live on Firetalk.
Click here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/5478/3/_/17627/_/961166623/
Pierre Abbat
>case -- goes on to Pineville though aiming at Charlotte -- as {mi klama la
>painvil la ralix za'o la charlyt}
No, that means "I go from Raleigh to Pineville when Charlotte has outlived its
usefulness."
phma
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRITERS WANTED! Themestream allows ALL writers to publish their
articles on the Web, reach thousands of interested readers, and get
paid in cash for their work. Click below:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3840/3/_/17627/_/961187456/
Jorge Llambias
la pycyn cusku di'e
>I think the point is that Pineville still is the *destination* but not the
>place he is going to end up -- at least unless he turns around.
As long as Pineville is still considered as the destination, it
seems all right.
>Suppose he
>stops off in Charlotte; his destination is still Pineville but he has
>stopped
>short of it and that is the (nearly mirror to za'o){mi co'u klama la
>painvil
>la ralix} or (more completely) {mi klama la painvil la ralix co'u la
>carlyt}
Yes! I agree with that {co'u} example.
>If a person uses {za'o} in the original sentence then he is, admittedly,
>continuing the same relation, but that relation does not depend on where he
>ends up.
Right, but it is clear that by using {za'o} he is not just
making a locational description, "I went past Pineville".
He is saying that he is still going to Pineville, that he
keeps going to Pineville (whether he will eventually get
there is not that important, but he is still on his way
there). There is no strong clue to suggest that he went
past it, that is only one of the possible unrealized
completions so we would need to get that from some context.
And only if he is planning on turning back would it make
sense to me to use {za'o}.
co'o mi'e xorxes
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missing old school friends? Find them here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/5534/3/_/17627/_/961193067/
michael helsem
Jorge Llambias
>Yes, these are two pretty good contextless thoughts, the first maybe more
>natural than the second (the goal is defined, so to speak, by destination
>not
>time). In both cases, the natural ending could be specified to clarify.
Yes, I agree about that. As an aside, I'm glad that you
accept that {broda <tag> <sumti>} is a more precise form
of {<tag> broda}, where the sumti is an appropriate reference
point for the tag. This works for all tags except (at least
in the official version of things) for {ba'o} and {pu'o}.
For these two the tag of the sumti somehow is incorporated
into the sumti itself instead of modifying the main selbri,
so that {broda ba'o le nu brode} is supposed to mean something
like {broda ca le nu ba'o brode} instead of a more precise
form of {ba'o broda}. To avoid this inconsistency I simply
use the form with {ca} and never use {ba'o} as a sumti tag.
>This is also the case with contextualized version. I would put the second
>case -- goes on to Pineville though aiming at Charlotte -- as {mi klama la
>painvil la ralix za'o la charlyt}
That one still sounds strange to me, but a little better than
using {mi za'o klama la paivil} to mean going past Pineville.
{klama} in Lojban is essentially different than English "go"
because it has five arguments, whereas an English sentence
normally has only one (as far as the effect of selbri modifiers
goes at any rate). {mi za'o klama la painvil} means the same
as {la painvil za'o se klama mi}, Pineville is still my
destination. Maybe if I missed the exit I can make that
claim to indicate that I'm turning back as soon as I can,
but not just to indicate that I kept going. Only if Painville
still remains my destination does za'o make sense to me.
>After the natural end (completion) of a process, the continuation is of
>some
>dominant activity in the process, in the case of going to, traveling -- but
>it may be described still process terms. A man who set out to build a
>house
>and then, when the house is built, starts building other things miles away,
>can be said to keep on building, even though he is no longer building the
>same house
Yes, in English, where the predicate is just "building".
But he cannot be said to keep on building the same house
if he is building another one. There is nothing special
about the x1 place in this respect. If the man could be said
to be still building the house, then could we say that the
man is still building the house when he sold it and someone
else is now building? The house is still being built, but
is the original man still building? Lojban predicates have
several argument places (usually too many) and we can't
do as if the tense applied to the predicate as if it only
had one argument.
>(a weak case, I admit, but there are surely some good ones).
>Notice that the sentence does not say he is on his way to Pineville, only
>that Pineville is the destination of his going, {za'o} then says that he
>has
>passed his detination (natural end point).
I don't think {za'o} says something specifically about the
x1 place. It says that the relationship between the five places
is still going on after its natural end point. If what used
to be the destination is no longer the destination, then the
relationship is no longer going on, and za'o does not apply.
This is different than in English, where there is only one
argument of the action "going" to take into account.
co'o mi'e xorxes
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRITERS WANTED! Themestream allows ALL writers to publish their
articles on the Web, reach thousands of interested readers, and get
paid in cash for their work. Click below:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3840/3/_/17627/_/961180539/