From phma@ixazon.dynip.com Tue Nov 05 18:06:00 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=neofelis.ixazon.lan)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 189FZs-0001E8-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:05:56 -0800
Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 9754C3C478; Tue,  5 Nov 2002 21:05:21 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: zo'e = ? su'o de (was Re: What the heck is this crap?)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:05:19 -0500
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2]
References: <20021105222732.GH22843@digitalkingdom.org> <20021105183900.B73242-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> <20021106012854.GB54404@allusion.net>
In-Reply-To: <20021106012854.GB54404@allusion.net>
X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <02110521051903.07767@neofelis>
X-archive-position: 2439
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Tuesday 05 November 2002 20:28, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> zo'e == "implied value".  This means it can mean things which don't
> claim existence, such as "lo'e pavyseljirna" or "lo'i cridrdrakone"
> (ok; well on that last I guess it depends on whether ro is importing,
> no? -- imho it would *suck* *ass* if ro were importing though, as
> lo'i broda wouldn't be something you could say when the set is
> empty, since the inner quantifier is ro.  Also I gather that
> nonimporting universal quantifier is more standard in logic as
> well).  This isn't the same as "su'o de" ("de") because it doesn't
> involve an existential quantifier.

Okay, what about {gambire ji'i civoda}? That has an implied zo'e whose value 
isn't any sort of quantified thing. {su'oda gambire ji'i civoda} is false, 
because a thing can be at most one type of gambier. But {gambire ji'i civoda} 
is, at least the way I used it, equivalent to {ji'i civoda se gambire}, which 
may be true, though ITIS's list doesn't show nearly that many.

phma