darkweasel:Jam before an expression of time shows that the speaker believes that this expression of time shows something very early.

Maljam is the logical opposite, it shows that the speaker thinks that the thing that happened at the given time happened very late.

Ok, I know what you mean, but I'm still not sure about 'maljam'. As PMEG says, "ofte jam estas la malo de ankoraŭ". That is the main obstacle to my understanding of 'maljam' in the way you present above!

Chainy:You could interpret 'maljam' like this:

Mi jam faris tion = I've already done that
Mi maljam faris tion = I haven't done that yet.

No. That's ilogical. The sentence "Mi maljam faris tion." does not have any negation. So it indicates that the thing is done (farIS).

You can say: "Mi maljam faris ĝin hieraŭ (kaj ne jam antaŭ tri semajnoj, kiel mi planis antaŭe)."

Or: "Mi faros ĝin maljam morgaŭ."

johmue:My native language German does distinguish between "nur" = (eo: nur) and "erst".

I find it useful to have this distinction:

Take the example from above and extend it to the following dialog:

"Bedaŭrinde mi povos viziti vin nur venontsemajne."
"Sed ..., post tri semajnoj estos mia naskiĝtago kaj vi promesis ke vi min ankaŭ tiam vizitos ... kaj nun vi diras ke vi nur la venontan semajnon venos..."

Yes, I agree that it could be handy to have such a distinction in Esperanto for the sake of more flexibility in the sentence construction.

However, if we try to express that above sentence using the more traditionally accepted form of Esperanto, then I suppose we could get round the problem by changing the sentence a little:

"Bedaŭrinde, mi NE povos viziti vin ĝis vonontsemajne"

This kind of sentence makes sense to an English-speaker in that it's rather like:

I can't visit you until next week.

johmue:
No. That's ilogical. The sentence "Mi maljam faris tion." does not have any negation. So it indicates that the thing is done (farIS).

"maljam" alone could be seen as the negation, don't you think?

'Jam' indicates that it was already done. And 'maljam' could indicate the direct opposite, namely that it is 'not already' done.

Chainy:

johmue:
No. That's ilogical. The sentence "Mi maljam faris tion." does not have any negation. So it indicates that the thing is done (farIS).

"maljam" alone could be seen as the negation, don't you think?

'Jam' indicates that it was already done. And 'maljam' could indicate the direct opposite, namely that it is 'not already' done.

No, not "jam" indicates that it was already done. It is the "-is" ending, that indicates that.

The following example shows, that "jam" does not indicate that something is done in the past:
"Mi jam faros ĝin morgaŭ kaj ne la venontan semajnon."

johmue:
No, not "jam" indicates that it was already done. It is the "-is" ending, that indicates that.

Ok, maybe I'm missing the point of 'mal-', but doesn't it indicate the direct opposite?

According to PMEG:

"Jam" signifas, ke antaŭe okazis ia ŝanĝo, ekz. ekesto de nova ago aŭ stato, ĉeso de ago aŭ stato, atingo de certa kvanto aŭ longo, kaj simile.

So, 'Jam' means that some kind of change happened earlier. What's the direct opposite of that? Probably that some kind of change DIDN'T happen.

So, you could logically argue that 'maljam' = ankoraŭ ne. Well, at least, I don't see why not.

Ok, I have no idea about 'maljam'. It just sounds weird to me. Still, maybe some day someone will be able to explain it to me in a very logical way. Meanwhile, I think I'll stick with 'ne...ĝis', which is much clearer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of having a word in Esperanto that works just like 'erst' in German. It could be useful. It's just that I don't like the idea of that word being 'maljam'! (well, at least not at the moment). Maybe an entirely new word or some other form could be used?

Chainy:

johmue:
No, not "jam" indicates that it was already done. It is the "-is" ending, that indicates that.

Ok, maybe I'm missing the point of 'mal-', but doesn't it indicate the direct opposite?

According to PMEG:

"Jam" signifas, ke antaŭe okazis ia ŝanĝo, ekz. ekesto de nova ago aŭ stato, ĉeso de ago aŭ stato, atingo de certa kvanto aŭ longo, kaj simile.

So, 'Jam' means that some kind of change happened earlier. What's the direct opposite of that? Probably that some kind of change DIDN'T happen.

So, you could logically argue that 'maljam' = ankoraŭ ne. Well, at least, I don't see why not.

"jam" means that something happened, happens, or will happen earlier than some defined point in time. So "maljam" means that something happened, happens, or will happen later than some defined point in time.

Ĝi ankoraŭ ne estas preta, ĉar mi maljam faras ĝin nun.

Ĝi estos preta morgaŭ, ĉar mi jam faras ĝin nun.

johmue:
No, not "jam" indicates that it was already done. It is the "-is" ending, that indicates that.

Why are you telling me the blatantly obvious? I'm more interested in a logical explanation of 'maljam', which I haven't seen yet.

I was just speculating that 'maljam' could be interpreted as meaning 'ankoraŭ ne', and so as such it contains the negation! Bizarre idea, yes, but then so is the word 'maljam'!

johmue:
So "maljam" means that something happened, happens, or will happen later than some defined point in time.

oh dear, this is not helping me. 'Later than some defined point in time'? Do you mean 'after' (=post)?

johmue:
Ĝi ankoraŭ ne estas preta, ĉar mi maljam faras ĝin nun.

So, the 'defined point in time' is presumably 'nun'. And so 'maljam' means that the thing happens 'later' than this? So, you could say 'mi faros ĝin [pli] poste'.

johmue:
Ĝi estos preta morgaŭ, ĉar mi jam faras ĝin nun.

Ok, this one makes sense. The idea of 'jam' emphasizes the fact that you you're doing it right now.