Message-Id: <m0rIN1H-00007DC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:33:28 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      zo'e (was: kau obverse)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199412150645.AA18107@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language
              Group" at Dec 15, 94 01:45:17 am
Content-Length: 1228
Lines: 30

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 <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.