From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Fri Dec  3 08:07:57 1993
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 3 Dec 1993 13:09:07 -0500
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 3 Dec 1993 12:44:36 -0500
Message-Id: <199312031744.AA00854@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 7587; Fri, 03 Dec 93 13:07:48 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 2298; Fri, 03 Dec 93 13:07:35 EDT
Date:         Fri, 3 Dec 1993 13:07:57 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      The return of the ZAhO
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Colin Wright says:

> Now consider example 12.6
>
>    mi morsi ba'o lenu mi jmive
>
> The ba'o tags the event of my living, and the ba'o
> indicates that the relationship expressed by the
> bridi is complete when taken relative to the sumti.
> Thus this translates as
>
>    I die and finish doing so before I live.
>
> Hmm.  The translation given is that I die in the
> aftermath of my living, which makes more sense, but
> seems to me to be inconsistent with the previous
> examples.
>
> Comments ??

I agree with you. For all tags that don't contain a
member of ZAhO, the rule is consistent: the tag modifies
the main bridi in the same sense as when applied
directly to the selbri. If the tag contains a ZAhO,
however, things are more or less reversed.

I believe that the problem in the case of ba'o stems
from the fact that the definitions of ba'o and pu'o
are crossed. (WARNING: This is my opinion only,
contrary to the canonical one.)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. If you
can get hold of old postings to the list you can read an
abundant discussion of the topic.

Jorge