Envelope-to: lojban-list-archive@lojban.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 07:47:31 -0800
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jake@mail.jerrington.me designates 91.121.223.63 as permitted sender) client-ip=91.121.223.63;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {zo'e}
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <bad4709c-1c05-d4f7-f56c-78089950fa4f@gmail.com>
 <2914956.R1SSoXq267@puma>
 <CAKOEKkRpASKLMuhNdHnFwWUhBX+nw2tBWO=Pt9-Ny6zyaio_pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3057250.gkAYTAapcS@puma> <86v9djg26p.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <e0a16e64-8f52-e576-af76-f895ff5ab220@gmail.com>
 <517f4985-4f82-495b-9b07-e03210186403n@googlegroups.com>
 <86wnwwcl2t.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <b5b761ef-45fb-12d2-5592-73745736b33f@mail.jerrington.me>
 <86sg7ehrgv.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
From: Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me>
Message-ID: <65e161f6-fda1-241f-4cf9-fd5ebd4a1e87@mail.jerrington.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86sg7ehrgv.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:47:26 GMT
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.8
X-Spam_score_int: -27
X-Spam_bar: --

coi

On 2021-01-06 13:04, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote:
> If we use your interpretation, then {mi viska zo'e} could mean {mi viska
> lo nanmu} but could not mean {mi viska lo na nanmu}.  It seems, to me,
> that {lo na nanmu} would be a perfectly legitimate meaning for {zo'e}.

My interpretation wouldn't forbid {lo na nanmu} as a referent for=20
{zo'e}. It forbids {no da (poi whatever)} as a referent for zo'e,=20
because such a referent makes the (outer) bridi negative.

 =C2=A0 {mi viska lo na nanmu} is an affirmative statement, that I see=20
something that satisfies (the negative) {na nanmu}.

On the other hand

 =C2=A0 {mi viska no (da poi) nanmu} is a negative statement, that I do not=
=20
see anything that satisfies (the affirmative) {nanmu}.

The crucial difference is that in the former, I do say I'm seeing=20
something, and that thing is identified by not being a {nanmu}; whereas=20
in the latter I am merely denying seeing any {nanmu}. In other words,=20
the latter is a claim of _not seeing_, versus the former being a claim=20
of _seeing_.

See=20
https://lojban.org/publications/cll/cll_v1.1_xhtml-section-chunks/section-n=
egation-boundaries.html#example-random-id-fpeW=20
in particular the paragraph below example 16.70 explaining that {no da}=20
is replaced with {naku su'o da}.

Now I hope my reason for saying {no da (poi whatever)} can't be what=20
{zo'e} stands for is clear: if (implicit) {zo'e} can stand for {noda},=20
then a claim such as {mi viska (zo'e)} could actually mean that I=20
_don't_ see! And to me, that is totally bonkers.

> zo do'e ki'a

Many cmavo ending in {o'e} are 'elliptical' in Lojban (with the=20
egregious exception of {.o'e} itself). {do'e} is the elliptical modal,=20
which stands for some BAI/fi'o.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--=20
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 e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
lojban/65e161f6-fda1-241f-4cf9-fd5ebd4a1e87%40mail.jerrington.me.