Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 3 Nov 1993 08:27:54 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 3 Nov 1993 08:27:50 -0500 Message-Id: <199311031327.AA02760@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8328; Wed, 03 Nov 93 08:27:43 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 8810; Wed, 03 Nov 93 08:27:27 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 13:30:12 GMT Reply-To: Richard Kennaway Sender: Lojban list From: Richard Kennaway Subject: Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 3 13:30:12 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET zi'o is a place-filler used to indicate that there is nothing in that place. I.e. not that syntactically that argument has not been expressed, which is what zo'e means, but that semantically, there is nothing in the real world taking that role in the meaning of the predicate. 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)", since this statement does not express the positive relationship that people are trying to get when zi'o-ing the destination place of klama. If a relation like that which "klama" names is taken to be an atomic concept, that either holds between a tuple of things -- including a destination -- or does not, then zi'o makes no sense. (I'm sure the above isn't saying anything that hasn't been said already, but I haven't seen any convincing counterargument.) For zi'o to mean anything like what it is intended to mean, we must consider the relationship denoted by a brivla to have some sort of internal structure, to be made up of various components in some way. Only then can omitting the destination place of klama leave some sort of relationship among the remaining arguments other than the mere denial that they are related by klama to any destination. What that relationship is would have to be part of the definition of each gismu, covering every way of zi'o-ing a subset of the places, or at least every meaningful way. But which ways are meaningful? How does one set about deciding whether it is meaningful to zi'o, say, the first place of klama? Or all five? It seems to me that if a place can be sensibly zi'o-ed, it doesn't belong in the definition at all. -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.