Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rIto2-00007DC; Sat, 17 Dec 94 09:43 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA25518 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 1994 09:43:52 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-7 #2494) id <01HKQQK53I5C0009TQ@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Sat, 17 Dec 1994 07:42:54 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2326; Sat, 17 Dec 1994 08:40:42 +0100 Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:42:39 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: scope of zo Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: Logical Language Group Message-id: <01HKQQK54JTU0009TQ@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 926 Lines: 20 >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