From iad@MATH.BAS.BG Thu Jul 06 07:18:35 2000
Return-Path: <iad@math.bas.bg>
Received: (qmail 7089 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2000 14:18:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Jul 2000 14:18:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO argo.bas.bg) (195.96.224.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2000 14:18:33 -0000
Received: from banmatpc.math.bas.bg (root@banmatpc.math.bas.bg [195.96.243.2]) by argo.bas.bg (8.11.0.Beta1/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with ESMTP id e66EIQS01260 for <lojban@egroups.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:18:30 +0300
Received: from iad.math.bas.bg (iad.math.bas.bg [195.96.243.88]) by banmatpc.math.bas.bg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA09762 for <lojban@egroups.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:18:25 +0300
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <39647ECA.EFD08C88@math.bas.bg>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:42:50 +0300
X-Mozilla-Draft-Info: internal/draft; vcard=0; receipt=0; uuencode=0; html=0; linewidth=0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o
References: <20000706015708.3248.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@MATH.BAS.BG>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 3433

Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la ivAn cusku di'e
> >I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by `mirror'.  There is
> >a reason for the current asymmetry of even contours, and it is
> >the fact that causality works forward in time.
> 
> I don't dispute that of course. What word should I use, "dual"?
> It is certainly a duality relationship [...].  In all of these
> we have X = 'not Y not' for some suitable use of 'not'.

Yes, `dual' is indeed the usual term for this.

> >{co'a}:  event brings forth process
> >{mo'u}:  process brings forth event
> >{co'u}:  event discontinues process
> >
> >There doesn't seem to be a vacancy for a fourth point.
[...]
> If we can make a distinction between "event discontinues process"
> and a "process brings forth event", I don't see why we can't
> distinguish "event brings forth process" from "process leaves
> event behind", distinguishing a mere circumstantial start from
> an actual birth or origination.

But that would involve no causality, merely the coincidence
of two times (of the event and of the start of the process),
because a process can't cause something except by having gone
on for a while, and that is already covered by {mo'u}.
Which may imply that {co'a} is {za'o}'s mirror, in the sense
of being the symmetrically allocated item in the sequence
{pu'o -- co'a -- ca'o -- mu'o -- za'o -- co'u -- ba'o}.

> > > >I have washed the car, but I have not yet walked the dog.
[...]
> Maybe the way to get that would be:
> 
> i mi ba'o lumci le karce i mi pu'o ku'i dzugau le gerku

Yes, that looks very good to me.

--Ivan