On the tense system

[Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

coi djan. mi puzi mo'u tcidu fi le lojbo temci selsku ciste selpapri
.i fe ri mi do preti
.i le glico cu bangu mi di'e
.i zoi gy.

I have two questions about the tenses, which probably
have come up before, but I'll ask anyway.

If I understood correctly, the tenses could be roughly
represented graphically in the following manner, where
the '0' is the reference point, which defaults to here
and now. (I only discuss the time tenses.)



-----------X---------------0---------------------------->
           pu

---------------------------0---------------------------->
                           ca

---------------------------0--------------X------------->
                                          ba

------=========>|----------0---------------------------->
           ba'o

----------------===========0==========>----------------->
                         ca'o

---------------------------0-------|==============>----->
                                    pu'o

---------------------------0|========>------------------>
                              co'a

---------------==========>|0---------------------------->
                     co'u

          ______________________
                                |
------------=============>|0---------------------------->
           _____________________|
OR:             co'u  (I don't know whether co'u necessarily
                implies that there is a "natural" ending point)

          ________________
                          |
------------=============>|0---------------------------->
           _______________|
                      mo'u

          _________
                   |
------------===============0===>------------------------>
           ________|
                     za'o  (Is this where the 0 should be?)
(I don't understand the statement in the paper: "za'o is
to ba'o as mo'u is to co'u")

            _____________  __________
                         \ \
------------=============>|0---------------------------->
              _____________\ \__________
                     de'a


             ____________  __________
                         \ \
---------------------------0|========>------------------>
               ____________\ \__________
                              di'e



----------------===========0==========>----------------->
                \__________  _________/
                           \/
                          co'i


First question: Why are "ba'o" and "pu'o" interchanged? The paper
says that "pu'o", "ca'o", and "ba'o" were etymologically derived
from the PU cmavo, but "pu'o" seems to have taken the place of
"ba'o" and viceversa.

I think that my second question is the answer to this one, but
I wanted to know if there is a rational explanation without
looking at the sumti tcita part.


Now for the second question: Why was the beautiful, simple and
powerful idea of the imaginary journeys maculated with the ugly
special exception for the ZAhO tcita?

When I first read example 12.6 of the paper:

        ___mi morsi ba'o lenu mi jmive___

I am-dead [perfective] the event-of I live.

I interpreted it thus:

Imaginary journey: from the reference point "event-of I live"
                  the I am-dead has already been completed.
==>     I had died before my living.
Which is a bit nonsensical.

To get the paper's meaning: I die in the aftermath of my living.
I would have said something like:

        ___mi morsi co'a lenu mi co'u jmive___

I begin being dead from the time of the event I cease living.

if you want to be that precise; but I think that simply:

        ___mi morsi ba lenu mi jmive___

is clear enough in many cases. Of course it does not exclude
the possibility that I died before I ceased to live, but why
do we want to emphasize that? The other way also does not
exclude the possibility that I will cease being dead sometime
in the future, which can be made explicit if required.



The answer to my first question would be that "pu'o" and "ba'o"
mean "before" and "after" when used as tcita, with the strange
special rule for the ZAhO tcita, but I find this is a lousy
reason to exchange their more "natural" meanings.

So, am I missing something? If not, what was the reason to ruin
the great imaginary journeys concept?

gy.
.i co'o mi'e xorxes.