From iad@MATH.BAS.BG Sat Jul 08 23:58:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5771 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2000 06:58:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jul 2000 06:58:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO argo.bas.bg) (195.96.224.7) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jul 2000 06:58:03 -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 e696w1S10496 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 09:58:01 +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 JAA18968 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2000 09:58:01 +0300 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <39675630.E73A5553@math.bas.bg> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 19:26:24 +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: <20000707004806.34364.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ivan A Derzhanski Jorge Llambias wrote: > la ivAn cusku di'e > >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}. > > Not physical causality, of course, but what gets called the > origin or initiation may be a consequence of the process > occurring, i.e. we could not talk of there having been a > begining unless the process has been going on for a while. Yes, for there to be a process (and a beginning and an end thereof), it must take some time. But at the time of the beginning it has not taken any time yet. Contrariwise, at the time of the culmination it has done, though it may or may not take more time from then on. > This is really the only sense in which a process "brings forth" > the culmination event anyway, isn't it? No, it isn't. The process brings forth its culmination by causing it. > >Which may imply that {[ca'o]} 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}. > > Only if we place the mirror at {mu'o}. But if we placed it > at {ca'o} (I think a more natural placing), we have: > > pu'o - co'a - xxx - xxx - ca'o - mu'o - za'o - co'u - ba'o Only if we start with the preconceived notion that {ca'o} is somehow a more natural placing and then try to twist our analysis so as to justify that. This is not what I'm interested in doing. The mirror should go where the analysis reveals its place to be, whether it looks natural or not. --Ivan