[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 10:05 AM 1/13/03 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> >Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
> >
> > > This again is incompatible with tu'o meaning mo'ezi'o, which requires that
> > > there be NO number
> >
> >Not what zi'o means, but a common error that I strive to eradicate
> >
> >A zi'o sumti does not mean that no value *can* be expressed, but that
> >the relationship is being constrained ("projected" in relational algebra)
> >to suppress it. Thus "klama fo zi'o" does not necessarily involve
> >teleportation
> >(where there is no route), but it doesn't exclude it either. So both
> >teleportation and non-teleportation events are included in klama fo zi'o,
> >but only non-teleportation is involved in klama without fo zi'o
>
> So are zo'e and zi'o mutually exclusive or are they not. Your defining
> example of zi'o in CLL and explanation make them look mutually exclusive;
> your recent example involving "translated" make them look muturally
> exclusive. This explanation and prior ones I've had from you make zi'o a
> subset of zo'e (or is it vice versa) because all instances of one can be
> represented by the other
>
> They cannot both be exclusive and also one be inclusive of the other, and
> until it gets settled, I don't understand what anyone means when they use it
Suppose for a moment that you did understand {zi'o catra ko'a} to
mean "ko'a dies". Then that bridi doesn't say whether or not
somebody killed ko'a.
In this instance, you can equally well say {ko'a mrobi'o}, to talk
about dying. But how do we talk about bottles and tigers in general,
rather than lidded bottles and striped tigers in particular?
--And.