[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
> 2. At best zi'o makes a one-place version of catra, a different predicate
> which still must be some flavor of catra. There is nothing inherent to the
> LANGUAGE that says that catra is related in terms of morsi binxo - they
> also are different predicates. We would tend to assume pragmatically that
> zi'o catra has something to do with catra because they are the same word
> (but a different construct).
That's the idea.
> (zilcatra is a different word, of course, and
> what it means is presumably either defined by jvojva or is adhoc).
It means the same as catra be fa zi'o.
> zi'o
> catra has no OBVIOUS relationship to morsi binxo, because they are
> different predicates AND unrelated words. It takes knowledge of the word
> definitions and pragmatic knowledge of the way the real world works in
> order to claim that they "mean the same" (which really should be that they
> entail each other).
True. In fact I doubt if they do entail one another, as shown by the
example:
On Monday I shot him, which caused his death on Friday.
*On Monday I shot him, and I killed him on Friday.
> 3. Since zi'o can include zo'e according to Cowan,
No, no, the other way about. If zo'e appears, it *might* mean zi'o;
but zi'o cannot "mean" zo'e, in fact nothing can "mean" zo'e, for it
has no intrinsic meaning.
> 4. Orthogonal to all of the above (and making everyone's position wrong
> %^), Nora said something (mentioned below, but my response fits
> here). "fi'o catra fe'u zo'e" attaches a "slayer" place to a given
> predicate. Lojban dogma is that attaching a BAI place does not make it a
> different predicate - that it is in fact a normal part of a Lojban
> predication to be able to add extra tcita sumti at will and that any Lojban
> predication has an arbitrary number of additional places that can be so
> added, with the number of potentially added places being infinite through
> the use of FIhO. Key points: we say that adding places with FIhO does NOT
> make it a "new predicate", but just merely additionally specifies
> information to refine the "same predicate". But "(zi'o catra) fi'o catra
> [fe'u] zo'e" is absolutely identical to "zo'e catra", thus by Lojban dogma
> "zi'o catra" must be the same predicate as "catra", but the latter is more
> completely specified.
AFAIK this is just a matter of the semantics of "new", predicated of selbri.
No issue.
> Nora asks, what do we do with "zi'o blanu". She suspects that Xod would
> like to contemplate that as a Whorfian mind-blower; the projection analysis
> of zi'o would seem to indicate a meaning of some sort.
Sure. It's a complete bridi, and it's false, you can say that much
right off (because the set of sumti-sequences that makes it true is null).
> Nora also claims that ellipsis (and thus possibly zo'e) can include
> "noda". Her reasoning: Take any true predication. This predication has
> an infinite number of ellipsized BAI/fi'o places. It is possible to want
> to add a place with sumti value noda: "fi'o broda [fe'u] noda" (her
> specific example "A man is a man with no exceptions -> "lo nanmu cu nanmu
> fi'o -exceptions [fe'u] noda") Now is this "fi'o -exceptions zo'e" or
> "fi'o -exceptions zi'o" or something else?
fi'o-zi'o is pointless: you add a place only to delete it again.
The question is how to read "lo nanmu cu nanmu fi'o -exceptions ku",
and the answer is that I'd hardly read that as "fi'o -exceptions noda"
(which puts the whole sentence under a negation) unless the context
compelled me to.
--
My corporate data's a mess! John Cowan
It's all semi-structured, no less. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
But I'll be carefree jcowan@hidden.email
Using XSLT http://www.reutershealth.com
In an XML DBMS.