From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:52:06 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 7 May 1993 16:47:57 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0253; Fri, 07 May 93 16:47:24 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8004; Fri, 07 May 93 16:48:23 EST Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 21:21:03 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Mr Andrew Rosta Subject: Re: TECH: experimental cmavo "xo'e" X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET, "Mark E. Shoulson" To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 07 May 93 12:00:35 D.) <9305071906.AA21946@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> X-From-Space-Date: Fri May 7 22:21:03 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: > >Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 15:39:01 -0700 > >From: hedgehog%SCRIPPS.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > >X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu > > >>>Well, actually, my copy of the gimste has > >> > >>>zbasu zba make > >>>x1 makes/assembles/builds/manufactures/creates x2 out of materials x3 > >> > >>>in which case this particular one's denying the existence of any > >>>material out of which it is made, which is a bit easier to comprehend. > >> > >>Well, isn't that just {zbasu fi noda}? There *is* a difference between > >>{xo'e} and {noda}, but defining it is not easy. > >> > >> > >>%mark > > >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 I think this difference between _zo'e_ and _xo'e_ is (& John Cowan may correct me on this, for I've not read the negation paper) that if _zo'e_ in fact refers to 'noda' then the predication is negated, whereas if _xo'e_ "refers to 'noda'" the predication is altered in meaning, but not negated. For example, if the source sumti of _cliva_ were noda, I suppose there'd be no leaving - nothing happened, whereas if the source sumti of _cliva_ were _xo'e_, _cliva_ could refer to motion that may have eternally been in existence (& therefore have no source). I must say I find it highly unsatisfactory that _zo'e_ can mean 'noda' if am right about the negation (though I'm probably wrong). It means that zo'e-filled (and also empty?) sumti slots can refer to noda & therefore it is unclear whether the predication is positive or negative. I must have gone wrong somewhere in my reasoning here - I can't believe the semantics really works like this! ---- And