From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri May 7 10:33:10 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 7 May 1993 14:38:58 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9277; Fri, 07 May 93 14:38:20 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7195; Fri, 07 May 93 14:36:11 EST Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 14:33:10 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: xo'e and noda X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Message-ID: There is a significant different between these two words/concepts, based on the logical foundation of the language. (Regardless of which place of zbasu you are trying to eliminate - which I think we need to agree on since the error is causing confusion - I will presume the "maker" place, which is x1, since that is what caused the original confusion). xo'e zbasu claims that something is made, from some material, i.e. xo'e zbasu zo'e zo'e but that there was no maker involved, and that the concept of maker is not relevant to the claim of made-ness/made-from-ness. This brings to mind the concept of things coming together on their own and assembling into "da" on their own, spontaneously. It thus differs somewhat from "pagbu" x1 is a part component of x2 in that it talks about the process by which the components became a part of the whole. By comparison, the components of something may be something other than the materials out of which it was made, if there has been any changes in composition since the 'making'. A perhaps better equivalent to maker-less "zbasu" is "krasi", which presumes no agent ("cfari" might be seen as a source-less zbasu, i.e., with xo'e in x3). noda zbasu zo'e zo'e "nothing" made zo'e-1 out of zo'e-2 must be exported to the prenex for logical analysis: noda zo'u di zbasu zo'e zo'e For no x1: x1 made zo'e-1 from zo'e-2 which transforms by the rules of negation (someone correct me if I'm doing this manipulation incorrectly, but even if I am, the effect is something like what I'm saying). naku roda zo'u da zbasu zo'e zo'e It is false for all possible x1, that x1 made zo'e-1 from zo'e-2 from whence the negation may be reinserted in the sentence as: roda zo'u da na zbasu zo'e zo'e for all x1, it is false that x1 made zo'e-1 from zo'e-2 This is a negative claim - a denial that something made zo'e-1 from zo'e-2. It does not claim made-ness or made-from-ness for the two zo'e values because there remains that essential negation in the logic. Indeed, it denies that "zbasu" is a relationship that holds. xo'e zbasu claims that there is indeed a relationship of resulting construct and source material, but that in spite of this, that the third element that one would expect, the maker, has no meaningful value. If one wants an example where xo'e might have usefulness, teleportation might be seen as "klama fo xo'e". Addendum. I do not agree with And, either, that xo'e merely means that you aren't sure what goes in the place. xo'e >denies< that there is a value that holds/is relevant. The already accepted word "zo'e" says that there is a value for this place, but that it is either irrelevant or implicitly understood from the context, which is what usually is the case when you omit a place. Thus, per his example, when you state a predicate with an implicit "standards" place, like "xamgu" (good), you may not know what to put in the standards place, but it is part of the essential meaning of "good" that there is some standard of "good" vs. "bad". The usual value for this place is either your own personal standard of the moment or some presumed absolute and universal standard of "good" (usually "God's standard", for those of a religious bent, or "the good of the universe" or "of mankind" for some ethicists), and context usually indicates which of these applies. But to DENY that there is a standard of what constitutes "good" - well, I have to admit that I'm not sure what that means. The existence of such a standard is part of the definition of "xamgu", or of "good" for that matter. Removing the standard place gives a new concept, in this case one which I cannot grasp. lojbab