[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 06:09:45PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> xod:
[...]
> > 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
>
> This is why everybody hates zi'o. It was proposed as a fix to
> blotation (Bloated Gismu Syndrome, where the basic gismu has
> places that shouldn't be there and should have been addable by
> BAI or lujvo). So that you can, say, talk about bottles in
> general rather than lidded bottles in particular. Or tigers
> in general, rather than tigers with stripes.
>
> But it's incredibly counterintuitive to mark "there may or
> may not be a lid" and "there may or may not be stripes" by
> an overt word. When you think of bottles and tigers you
> don't normally stop to check whether or not you are thinking
> only of lidded and striped ones. And it's all to easy to
> intuitively misinterpret zi'o as meaning "is a lidless bottle",
> "is a stripeless tiger", in distinction to noda, "is not
> a lidded bottle", "is not a striped tiger".
I agree with lojbab/cowan's response to this part. Tiger != tirxu,
bottle != botpi.
> We all hated zi'o right from the start, and it is really only
> there in order to shush the people complaining about blotation.
> As a practicable solution to blotation it fails, which is why
> I advocate that elliptized zo'e should mean "zo'e a zi'o".
Wow, I actually agree with a blatantly anti-baseline viewpoint of
And's.
I think the "zo'e can't be noda" thing should be dropped as well.
I think zo'e should be "whatever the speaker means".
> > (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?
>
> +specific means that to make the sentence truth-evaluable you first
> have to identify which particular thing is being referred to.
>
> But zo'e can have a value of "da", "something", which does not
> refer to a particular thing -- it is not +specific. You could say
> perhaps that zo'e 'refers' to a +specific *phrase*, while the
> phrase itself may be nonspecific.
Rather, it refers to the referent of a +specific phrase.
(heh).
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binXUjoFV26e6.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped