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 m0ouu9Y-0000PaC; Thu, 4 Nov 93 04:10 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 8847; Thu, 04 Nov 93 04:10:38 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8845; Thu, 4 Nov 1993 04:10:37 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6424; Thu, 4 Nov 1993 03:09:51 +0100 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 21:06:55 EST Reply-To: Jorge LLambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge LLambias Subject: Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 847 Lines: 20 la'o gy Richard Kennaway gy cusku di'e > It seems to me that if a place can be sensibly zi'o-ed, it doesn't belong > in the definition at all. I agree with a watered down version of this. If the zi'o-ed relationship is useful enough, there is no need to restrict the concept with that place. (i.e. we are in the presence of a "Fat Gismu" :) However, there are occasions when a place can be sensibly zi'o-ed, and yet the concept obtained is not quite what we want. e.g. palci be zi'o, could mean "absolute evil", and there are people who cosider this a sensible concept. We may not agree that something like that exists, but the concept is not unthinkable. On the other hand, palci be zo'e is a much more lojbanic concept. You can still talk about absolute evil in Lojban, but you have to be more roundabout. di'u mi se jinvi co'o mi'e xorxes