From cowan@ccil.org Sat Aug 19 20:23:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2669 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2000 03:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Aug 2000 03:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Aug 2000 03:23:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA02660; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:13:44 -0400 (EDT) To: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" Cc: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Careful with noi! In-Reply-To: <8nlksc+pc35@eGroups.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Alfred W. Tueting (T=FCting) wrote: > That, now for me, really is the question: Does /zi'o/ "fill" a selbri > structure's place "with explicit emptiness" or does it strip off the > place=20 > itself, thus creating a new selbri with a different place structure?! The latter. This *may* imply the former, but not necessarily. > The "Woldemar Bible" (I gladly own myself now) seems ambiguous and > puzzling to me in this regard (p. 157/156): > a) "... when a bridi fills one of its places with 'zi'o', what is > really meant is that the selbri *has a place* which is > irrelevant(???) to the true=20 > relationship the speaker wishes to express..." In other words, we have performed the operation which in the relational calculus is called "projection": we have reduced a three-place relationship to a two-place one, or whatever. > b) "Note : the use of 'zi'o' to block up, as it were, one place of > the selbri actually creates a new selbri with a different place > structure...." >=20 > John's first example is convincing (regarding the first > interpretation): loi jmive cu se zbasu zi'o loi selci > because I indeed want to express that there *is no maker* (i.e. the > maker-place has to be filled with a negative/zero..., but the place > itself is=20 > there anyway). And it is stressed that its contents is not just > unimportant like when using /zo'e/ instead. Right. With "zo'e", there is an appropriate argument which the speaker has not bothered to articulate (and likewise with mere omission, which semantically is the same as "zo'e"). > Yet, the following examples don't seem convincing to me: zi'o zbasu > le dinji loi mudri (or: le dinji se zbasu zi'o loi mudri), mi zbasu > zi'o loi=20 > mudri and mi zbasu le dinji zi'o (BTW, in the last sentence is a > typo! It erroneously reads: mi zbasu loi mudri zi'o) > Unlike in the cell-example (where infact is no maker, except maybe > nature or god), *there are* makers or materials although unexpressed:=20 > I build *something* (maybe a house/houses etc.) using wood, I make > the building (using some material unexpressed), hence why *not* using=20 > /zo'e/ in these cases?! mi zbasu zo'e loi mudri, mi zbasu le dinji > zo'e You could, in those cases, use "zo'e" instead. But you would be expressing a subtly different relationship. > What use of zi'o should there be, if it didn't explicitely express > that the place respective is *empty* and not just irrelevant (and > hence=20 > unexpressed). It expresses a different relation. --=20 John Cowan cowan@ccil.org C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"