Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:44247) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RD22f-0003Ut-Gm; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:29 -0700 Received: by wyh11 with SMTP id 11sf10018698wyh.16 for ; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OHL1ouLvoL4VJ8NQg1xOsfwhK47TV9agoZq6hyhIi64=; b=aCac6CDSAlITSItZxlIQ5FV4uiHuIDaBoE07NfJOXYZ6RuavX3ckLGo5pUsU81tMh8 wn1LcneI1vHM02ZJb1Bth/2eA049igOg6r0OdrYzrydrHpewUMtIa2yE0HlV19AGWfL0 qQyxC8h0G3rZOIGwPcm+4rz5uAwDRrGgW3NRQ= Received: by 10.216.144.196 with SMTP id n46mr617012wej.0.1318200011351; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.38.21 with SMTP id z21ls10006370wbd.2.gmail; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.173.73 with SMTP id u51mr266599wel.0.1318200010442; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.173.73 with SMTP id u51mr266598wel.0.1318200010418; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f171.google.com (mail-wy0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fg13si9171155wbb.0.2011.10.09.15.40.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.171; Received: by mail-wy0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 13so8755906wyh.16 for ; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.58.148 with SMTP id g20mr5247193wbh.108.1318200010304; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.83] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.76.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y10sm29458071wbm.14.2011.10.09.15.40.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E9222C7.3010500@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:40:07 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable References: <20110914232007.GC6492@gonzales> <1316055853.22283.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110916000632.GD7274@gonzales> <1317917098.8073.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1317924653.89892.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111006193514.GC8826@gonzales> <3166A594-07BE-4D24-AA0F-C56D07C223A5@yahoo.com> <20111007003217.GD8826@gonzales> <4E91FF55.6070801@gmail.com> <53F868DD-3580-4B13-AAB1-AC2933FD0761@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <53F868DD-3580-4B13-AAB1-AC2933FD0761@yahoo.com> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.171 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / John E. Clifford, On 09/10/2011 23:09: > Clearly having {zi'o} as a value for {zo'e} would > just make a bad situation even worse, Yes, as I said. > as would {zi'o} as a value for an unfilled space. No -- this is clearly not clearly so, since you are replying to a message i= n which I say zi'o for unfilled place would be a good thing. It's a good thing in the current circumstances, which are circumstances in = which there are quite a lot of places that one would want to zi'o off most = of the time, and no strong convention of using overt zi'o when the speaker'= s intention is such that zi'o is appropriate and zo'e isn't. I think speake= rs generally do mean "zo'e or zi'o" when a place is left unfilled. If more comprehensive reforms were possible, it would be better to just abo= lish every gismu place that one might reasonably often want to zi'o. Then t= he virtues of having covert zi'o in empty places would evaporate. --And. > On Oct 9, 2011, at 16:08, And Rosta wrote: >> IMO the best rule would be for empty places to be fillable by zi'o or by= zo'e, but not for zi'o to be a possible value of zo'e. Disambiguation coul= d be effected by using an overt zi'o or zo'e. Allowing zi'o as a value of z= o'e would permit undisambiguable ambiguity -- of course a very bad thing. T= he advantage of letting empty places be fillable by covert zi'o is that it = would overcome the problem of superfluous gismu places that usage tends to = forget about. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.