[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
>
> > 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
>
> My view is that zo'e is a spoken silence: it replaces some words or other,
> and the listener is supposed to either glork from context, or else inquire,
> what words those might be. So zo'e has no direct referent: rather it is
> the unspoken "antecedent" (as it were) of zo'e that has a referent
> That antecedent could be zi'o or noda, but only a very specialized context
> would allow the listener to properly glork that, so it is un-Gricean to
> say "mi klama" when you mean "mi klama noda"
Wonderful! So... coupling this with Grice:
ellipsis can be filled in with whatever would be Griceanly most plausible.
ergo, it would hardly ever be {no da} (though cf. "A: mi citka no da.
B: mi go'i"). But sometimes it might be zi'o -- e.g. when talking
about bottles and tigers.
overt zo'e can also be replaced by any phrase
but Grice dictates that if you can be bothered to say zo'e aloud
you can be bothered to say no da aloud and zi'o aloud.
So Grice makes a probable distinction between zi'o and unelliptized
zo'e, but makes it probable that elliptized zo'e is construable
as zi'o.
Which is pretty much the PERFECT solution, given the lack of scope
for changing the prescription. So I declare that here is a respect
in which SL is mutce mutce to'e spofu!!!!
We need use overt zi'o only when we don't trust to Grice. And in
such a case we are better off using a lujvo anyway, because even
a zi'o sumti requires some glorking of meaning.
--And.