From lojbab Thu Dec 15 15:33:36 1994 Received: from access2.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA07852 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:33:30 -0500 Received: by access2.digex.net id AA27038 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab@access2.digex.net); Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:33:28 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412152033.AA27038@access2.digex.net> Subject: zo'e (was: kau obverse) To: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:33:28 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) In-Reply-To: <199412150645.AA18107@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Dec 15, 94 01:45:17 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1181 Status: RO la lojbab. cusku di'e > zo'e is elliptical, and if you want to use the term "unspecified", do not > equate it to non-specific (i.e. -specific) because it is I think +specific > > (how this statement of specificity interacts with the fact that zo'e might > represent "lo" which has been taken to be specifically non-specific, I will > leave to someone else to debate) I believe that "zo'e" could be either +specific or -specific. It quite simply is the same as leaving something unsaid and up to the listener's judgment as to what it is (this may make it +definite, although nothing turns on this point, as definiteness is not represented in Lojban). In sufficiently perverse circumstances, "zo'e" (or what is the same thing, sumti nalnunsku) could even represent "noda": A: noda lacri la djordj. Nobody relies on George (to do that). B: lacri la frank. Nor Frank either. Here context allows us to infer that the x1 of B's remark is being copied from the x1 of A's, even though A's x1 is a negative. You could also use "go'i" to do explicit copying, but it is not necessary. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.