From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri May 7 13:12:02 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 7 May 1993 13:12:02 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8753; Fri, 07 May 93 13:11:18 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6454; Fri, 07 May 93 13:11:54 EST Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 18:10:19 BST Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: TECH: experimental cmavo "xo'e" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: la clsn. cusku di'e > 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. This isn't easy, is it? I think {xo'e/zi'o} must mean that this particular argument place is irrelevant to the concept. So a {sorcu fo zi'o} is a supply whose location is irrelevant, e.g. because it is portable, which makes the {te sorcu} more like a {vasru}, but with an added emphasis on the actual quantity of material itself. And a {nu zbasu fi zi'o} must be an act of creation where the question of materials does not arise, perhaps because the {se zbasu} is totally abstract. This begins to look like a {nu finti}, but without the "purpose" place. Maybe {zbasu fa zi'o} is something like {jmaji zi'o}. I share your doubt about a general _rule_ for interpreting these. mi'e .i,n.