[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, John Cowan wrote: > Invent Yourself scripsit: > > > So your difference between zo'e and zi'o is "in mind", with zi'o as a > > superset of zo'e. Whereas I consider zi'o to mean that the place doesn't > > belong in the relationship that's being expressed. The speaker goes out of > > their way to delete the place, rather than simply indicating that there's > > a possibility that the speaker in fact has no value in mind. > > I think we agree, whereas you seem to think we don't. If we have a > relation Rabc, we can project the relations Rab, Rbc, Rac, Ra, Rb, Rc > from it with judicious use of zi'o. There are two kinds of instances > of Rab, those which are derivable from an underlying Rabc and those which > are not (teleporting and non-teleporting klama-ing, in my example). But motivationally, people are/should be moved to employ zi'o when the place makes no sense in the relationship they are trying to express. If the place is there but they don't wish to speak of it (non-teleporting, I think) then it's a bit misleading to use zi'o. This is to get maximum utility out of the cmavo. (And further, zi'o must be distinguished from noda.) > The use of zo'e, however, leaves us with the original relation Rabc, but > just fails to *express* one or more of a, b, or c. In order to find out > the unexpressed value, one may inquire. This is not the same as the "in > mind" that is a synonym for +specific. why not? -- // if (!terrorist) // ignore (); // else collect_data ();