From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:51:46 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 10 May 1993 15:10:39 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0775; Mon, 10 May 93 15:10:04 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3410; Mon, 10 May 93 15:10:56 EST Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 15:09:26 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: TECH: experimental cmavo "xo'e" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: hedgehog%SCRIPPS.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU's message of Fri, 7 May 1993 12:29:28 -0700 X-From-Space-Date: Mon May 10 11:09:26 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: >Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 12:29:28 -0700 >From: hedgehog%SCRIPPS.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu >>>Isn't the difference between "zbasu fi noda" and "zbasu fi xo'e" that the >>>first recognizes that x1 makes x2 from nothing (but it *could* have been >>>made from something) and the second says that x1 makes x2 *period*? "zabsu >>>fi zo'e" says that x1 makes x2 from something-or-other. >> >>But what does "x1 makes x2 period" mean? Does it mean you're not saying >>anything about the existence or non-existence of the materials? That's {fi >>zo'e}, since {zo'e} can be {noda}. Does it mean there are no such >>materials? That's {fi noda}. {xo'e} does seem to have a meaning in some >>cases, distinct from {noda} or {zo'e}, but apparently not in this case. I >>am not sure how this can be defined in general. >> >>~mark >"x1 makes x2 period" means that the question of the materials is >inappropriate. >How about "A mind makes (or produces) a thought". The thought isn't made >of nothing. The thought isn't made of an unspecified material. The >question of material just isn't appropriate. A good answer. I must think about this and try to see how it generalizes. >I also want to make it clear that I am not an advocate of _xo'e_. I feel >that it would introduce the sort of grammatical ambiguity than Lojban is >intended to reduce. If there is a need to say "x1 makes x2", I would >rather see a new gismu introduced than _xo'e_. ...and such a gismu exists: that's what {finti} is for. This, of course, is the motivation for {xo'e} in the first place, to enable such selbri as {cliva} (and {litru}) and {finti} to be created from "fuller" ones like {klama} and {zbasu}. The need was for a general way to do this on the fly, since you can't make up gismu in mid-discussion. ~mark