gistfile1.txt

15:13:45       @xalbo | "ba'o citka => ca co'e ba'o lo nu citka" That's wrong, and backwards.
15:14:00   ldleworker | how so                                                               
15:14:09   ldleworker | "we are in the aftermath of eating"                                  
15:14:24   ldleworker | "the now as an aftermath of eating"                                  
15:14:29       @xalbo | That's not what {ca co'e ba'o lo nu citka} means.
15:15:23       @xalbo | So {ca co'e ba'o lo nu citka} means that the aftermath of what we're doing now is
                      | the eating, not that now is the aftermath of the eating.                         
                      
I actually meant "the now *has* an aftermath of eating", that is, eating will be the aftermath of what we're doing now.

That's the same as what you say in your clarification. But even if the conversation went:

15:13:45       @xalbo | "ba'o citka => ca co'e ba'o lo nu citka" That's wrong, and backwards.
15:14:00   ldleworker | how so                                                               
15:14:09   ldleworker | "we are in the aftermath of eating"                                  
15:14:24   ldleworker | "the now has* an aftermath of eating"  

These two english renderings still say two different things.

"ba'o citka"
"we are in the aftermath of eating"
          citka
          ╠═══╣  ┊
                 ┊
     ⇜───────────┼───────────⇝
     Past       Now       Future



"ca co'e ba'o lo nu citka"
"the now has* an aftermath of eating"
                      citka
                 ┊    ╠═══╣
                 ┊
     ⇜───────────┼───────────⇝
     Past       Now       Future


The original typo would have actually been correct:

"ca co'e ba'o lo nu citka"
"the now as* an aftermath of eating"
          citka
          ╠═══╣  ┊
                 ┊
     ⇜───────────┼───────────⇝
     Past       Now       Future

"the now *as* an aftermath of eating" is actually the right interpretation.

So to summarize my conclusions from your lesson:
The preposition "ba'o X"  *does not* state "the bridi _has_ an aftermath of X".
The proposition "ba'o X" does state "the bridi _is_ an aftermath of X".

The preposition "ba X" *does not* state "the bridi _has_ a future of X"
The preposition "ba X" does state "the bridi _is_ the future of X"

I have a feeling that you're going to come back and say no for ba'o the bridi has and aftermath of X, but in the case of ba the bridi is the future of X and they simply don't work the same way.

ugh my brain is absolutely melting now

mi klama le zarci pu le nu do pu klama le zdani                                

I go-to the market [past] the event-of you [past] go-to the house.        

which the CLL translates as:

I *had* gone to the market before you went to the house.

What is this craziness. Why doesn't it translate to

 "I am currently going to the market before you have gone to the house."                                                              

The whole idea that sometimes you start at the speaker's time and space, and sometimes you start at tagged events is crazy-town.

"The current time, wherein traveling to the store is happening, is the past of you having gone to the house."                                                   

That is to state that, while traveling to the store is happening now, you traveling to the house will happen in the future Or rather, you having had traveled to the house, will happen in the future of the now wherein traveling to the store takes place