On 2021-01-01 18:07, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote:
I think just about all of that is wrong. {zo'e} can never mean {zi'o} but {zo'e} can, in certain contexts, mean {noda}. If you and I are in a brightly-lit room when the power goes out and it's suddenly plunged into pitch-black darkness, I might reasonably utter the observative: viska meaning, in that context, "I can't see anything!", {mi viska noda}.
{mi viska noda} is the same as {mi na viska su'o da}, so if what you're saying is true, then we can't know except through context whether a statement is affirmative or negative. Instead, use the observative {na viska}.
A zo'e-like word (e.g. do'e, xo'e, etc.) shouln't be able to stand for something that makes the claim go from affirmative to negative or vice versa.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/b5b761ef-45fb-12d2-5592-73745736b33f%40mail.jerrington.me.