From <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI,@SEARN.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Mon Mar 8 17:17:09 2010 Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI,@SEARN.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0ouqAS-0000PaC; Wed, 3 Nov 93 23:55 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 6516; Wed, 03 Nov 93 23:55:17 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6514; Wed, 3 Nov 1993 23:55:16 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0730; Wed, 3 Nov 1993 22:54:32 +0100 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 20:11:12 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 03 Nov 93 13:30:12 GMT.) Content-Length: 923 Lines: 26 > zi'o is a place-filler used to indicate that there is nothing in that > place. Not so: it is used to indicate that the place doesn't exist. > This is prima facie logically problematic. P(a,b,c,d,zi'o) cannot be taken > to mean "there is no e such that P(a,b,c,d,e)", In fact P(a,b,c,d,ziho) is true independently of whether there is no e such that P(a,b,c,d,e) or there is some e such that P(a,b,c,d,e) > It seems to me that if a place can be sensibly zi'o-ed, it doesn't belong > in the definition at all. Ziho changes the meaning in an only partly guessable way. What we shd be deciding is not whether a place is zihoable (every place is) but whether it is likely to be zihoed very very often (assuming it gets zihoed when it should). In this case there is a good Zipfean case for altering the place structure to exclude the oft-zihoed place from the definition. ---- And KO JBOBANPEHO