From lojbab Sat Dec 17 02:42:43 1994 Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA24518 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:42:41 -0500 Received: by access1.digex.net id AA02019 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:42:39 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:42:39 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412170742.AA02019@access1.digex.net> To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk Subject: Re: scope of zo Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO >Is a word nothing but an autonomous string of lerfu? Are the rafsi mav >and the cmevla mav both zo mav.? Are the gismu gerku and the cmene >gerku both zo gerku? Well, a *rafsi* is not a word, but at best a morpheme. But we are not talking about words, but about quoted strings/text when you are making claims involving these types of sumti. Think English, and in a noisy channel we say a word by spelling it out, thoug, so perhaps even wordsa are not more than strings of letters. zo mav refers to something/one named "mav", and that something may intensionally be the rafsi "mav". But otherwise the name and the rafsi are not the same word since a rafsi is not a word. The cmene "gerku" is allowed only BECAUSE gismu are allowed to be used as descriptive names (intensionally descriptive or labelling, actually), so the gismu and the cmene are identical and zo gerku is unquestionably ojne thing in this case. lojbab