Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o

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

And Rosta wrote:
> Xorxes to Ivan:
> > These agree in several properties. For example, {za'o}
> > and {ca'o}, like "still" and "already", show that the event
> > is indeed happening, and "pu'o" and "ba'o", like "not yet"
> > and "no longer", correspond to the not-happening stage.
[...]
> "za'o", however, is "ba'o completion, and ca'o".

Depends on the interpretation of {ca'o}.  See below.

> > >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.
> >
> > I do. I can think of many events with a natural starting point
> > that doesn't always coincide with the actual starting point.
> 
> I think the discrepancy between you & Ivan here is due to you each
> using slightly different analytical frameworks for ZAhO, where Ivan's
> is both the one more standard in linguistics and the one that informed
> the design of ZAhO, though not its exposition in reference material.

Actually, I'd say that mine is also there in the reference material,
though it follows from the data, not the terminology used there.

The book talks of a process continuing `beyond its natural end'
and uses the words `too long' in the translation of ex. (10.10).
This can very well make one wonder: if a process has a natural
end different from the actual one, why not a natural beginning?
and if it can go on for too long (ie ending too late), how about
starting too early?

Now let's look at the example itself, and its exegesis: `went on
explaining after the class already understood the problem'.  Aha!
So the so-called natural end is the culmination, the event that
results from the process.  You explain and explain --> the audience
understands.  You eat --> your tummy becomes full.  You put brick
on brick --> a house makes an appearance.  You progressively add
salt to water --> the solution becomes saturated.  Hence my
interpretation of {za'o}: process continues after its effect
is obtained.  Once we replace the debatable expression `natural
end' by the evidently synonymous `effect', the question of a
`natural beginning' becomes moot.

So did we end up with perfect symmetry, with its centre at {mo'u}?
We still may not have done, depending on the meaning of {ca'o}.
While the teacher {za'o ciksi} the problem, does he simultaneously
{ca'o ciksi} it?  I prefer to think that he doesn't.  Then {ca'o}
and {za'o} are indeed one another's mirrors, and the choice depends
on whether a/the culmination has been reached or not.  If he does,
and {ca'o} covers all from {co'a} to {co'u} (as And seems to assume),
then we're missing a ZAhO for the more narrow interpretation of {ca'o}.

--Ivan