Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o

[Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@MATH.BAS.BG>]

Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la ivAn cusku di'e
> >It may well be true that `still' is usually applicable where
> >{za'o} is.  (A similar affinity probably exists between {pu'o}
> >and `not yet', and between {ba'o} and `no longer'.)
> 
> I don't see a similar affinity there because neither {pu'o}
> nor {ba'o} have the "against expectations" component that
> {za'o} does have (indeed {pu'o} has in a sense the opposite
> expectation) and that "still", "not yet", "no longer"
> and "already" share.

We've just had the testimony of Robin the Turk to the effect that
_not yet_ carries no expectation (in this it differs from _still not_).
And p.228 of the Woldemar Codex states: `The cmavo {pu'o} [...] refer[s]
to an event that has not yet begun'.  Sounds like an affinity between
_not yet_ and {pu'o}.

> I can't see a lot of difference between {za'o ca'o},
> {ca'o za'o} and {za'o} by itself though.

Let us look at example 10.10 from the Codex: {za'o ciksi le seldanfu
le tadgri} `keep on explaining the problem to the class' (meaning till
after they've understood it).  Now {ca'o za'o} is merely a progressive
version of this; but I would interpret {za'o ca'o ciksi} as `keep on
explaining for an abnormally long time because they just won't get it'.


> >No, it isn't.  The process brings forth its culmination by causing it.
> 
> I don't see it. The event of my building a house does not cause
> the event of culmination of my building a house. The culmination
> is just one part of the event, just as the initiation is another
> part. How can the whole physically cause one of its parts?

Not the whole.  The process, which is one part of the culminated event,
causes the culmination, which is another part.

> But does it work in Lojban?

It works in the world.  It is a semantic thing, not something about this
or that language.  Of course, there is the problem of how every language
goes about expressing it.

> le pu'u mi zbasu le dinju cu rinka le mu'e mi mo'u zbasu le dinju

Try {le pu'u mi ca'o zbasu ...}.

> >The mirror should go where the analysis reveals its place to be,
> >whether it looks natural or not.
> 
> Ok, we're doing different things. You say: given the way Lojban
> ZAhOs are, we can arrange them so and explain them in terms of
> a mirror placed at {mu'o}.

Well, yes, but I also say that there is an objective reason Lojban
ZAhOs are the way they are.  They aren't just a whim of a few people
who made that component of the language; they reflect the way natlangs
are, and the way things are.

Let's forget about Lojban for a moment.  Let's do some mathematics.
You have a process which takes place in the interval _t' < t < t"_.
Let's represent it by a function _f(t)_, which is zero for _t < t'_
and for _t" < t_ and is positive (reflecting the intensity of the
process) for _t' < t < t"_.

The beginning and end are external to the process -- it doesn't cause
them.  It is the culmination that is caused by the process, or more
precisely by the accumulation of the process.  So we need to integrate
our function.  Its integral by _t_ equals zero up to point _t'_, grows
smoothly until point _t"_ and is constant thereafter; and the point,
call it _t*_, where it reaches some predefined value is where the
culmination is.

So we ended up distinguishing three points, which divide the domain
of the function _f(t)_ into four intervals.  Now we may (we don't
have to, but it's handy) plug in the Lojban ZAhOs: {pu'o} _t < t'_,
{co'a} _t'_, {co'a} _t' < t < t*_, {mo'u} _t*_, {za'o} _t* < t < t"_,
{co'u} _t"_, {ba'o} _t" < t_.

> I'm saying that if we were constructing a system of aspects,
> it would be nice to exploit the full symmetry of placing a
> mirror at {ca'o}.

Of course it would -- I love symmetry myself -- as long as that can
be matched to some meaning.  Trouble is, I don't see how it can.

--Ivan