From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:46:17 2010
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Sat Dec 23 01:19:55 1995
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: sera'aku le'ala'ezo PLI mezoigy. not yet gy.
X-To:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Sat Dec 23 01:19:55 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Message-ID: <eweMHm-xowM.A.zCG.5u0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

The norm for pu'o is still that the event occurs.  yes it can indeed
cover exceptions where the event is prevented from occuring, but we have other
cmavo to indicate actuality of an event if there is any doubt implicit in
the context.  So when necessary, you could say ba'opu'oca'a.

But I agree that this is not really what you want if you are shooting for the
complement of za'o.

Some possibilities include to'eza'o or pu'ojoica'o to convey this sense of
 starting before the fact.

lojbab