Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931008195608.256@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Fri, 8 Oct 1993 18:44:19 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Sender: vilva
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: deleting places
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Fri, 08 Oct 93 11:38:00 EDT.)
Content-Length: 1535
Lines: 38

Art says:
> 2)      Even if it were possible to have travel "without a destination",
>         I reject that concept using rather "with no destination"
>         which is still klama with the destination place filled by
>         the "answer does not exist" value.

"Answer does not exist" is a form of negation: this can't be a
possible value for an ellipted place, else it would be impossible
to assert anything. To say "may not necessarily exist" (which
changes the meaning but is not a form of negation) the word
is "ziho".

> SOME ONE PLEASE  POST WHAT THE WORD IS TO USE FOR "answer does not
> exist".

"Noda", I think.

> 3)      If everyplace must have a non-null value than most multiplace
>         gismu need corresponding gismu with fewer places.

This is true, except that lujvo will do instead of gismu, and words
with fewer places than the gismu won't always be needed, and if the
need is only occasional, "ziho" *might* do the trick for you.

> 4)      What about all the attachable places.  By the logic that every
>         place is fundamental to the understanding of the concept
>         that a gismu embodies, the attachment of another place once
>         means either that the gismu embodies two concepts or that
>         all uses of that gismu have that attached place.

The attachable places define a new gismu meaning, as does detaching
places with ziho. The answer to your disjunction is that the gismu
can embody more than one concept (it embodies as many concepts as
it has place structures).

-----
And