Re: [jboske] Transfinites

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 11:02 AM 1/13/03 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
>
> > I disagree. zi'o applies when there is no value that fills in the place,
> > not merely when it is undesirable to fill in the place, but a correct 
> value
> > does exist. The latter is clearly part of zo'e and therefore not zi'o
> > (because they are mutually exclusive by the discussion of CLL).
>
> Not so. With zo'e, a definite value exists in the speaker's mind but is
> not being expressed, and "FA ma" (for some value of FA) is a reasonable
> question.

Close. A definite value SHOULD exist. The speaker may not have that value 
in mind, nor know that value but FA ma is still a valid question even if 
the speaker doesn't know it.

But given your non-exclusive definition of zi'o, if you insert zi'o, the 
sentence remains true, and therefore zi'o is a valid answer to FA ma, 
because FA ma asks for a sumti that makes the sentence true.

> With zi'o, a definite value may or may not exist.
> I declare this to be true by founder intent (maybe there should be an
> evidential for this).

If you mean by inventor-of-zi'o intent, I can't argue, and ca'e is adequate 
(but ka'u would give a different answer because CLL and the cmavo list do 
not say that). But then you have numerous contradictions including the 
fact that zi'o can be used in BOTH versions of your "translated joke" 
example. and we have no word that means "a definite value DOES NOT exist".

lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org