Re: [jboske] Transfinites

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

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".

> 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.

They operate on different metalinguistic levels.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
"One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big
thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists
came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too.
Try hanging up and phoning in again.'" --Beverly Erlebacher