Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:41:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712021841.NAA26329@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: GLI zo/bacru X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Status: RO Content-Length: 1225 Lines: 27 Lojbab: > >I predict that if this is left to ordinary usage, words like > >"bacru" and "zo" (and many many others) will become homonymous. > > I think that as you seem to be defining the term, "zo" is alrteady > homonymous in that it has a broader meaning than, "lo". All it does is > quote a single word and use that quote as a sumti. It does not say what the > significance of that single word is in the predication for which it is a > sumti. It need not be a real Lojban word - merely a valid Lojban morphological > word form. This leaves lots of semantic slop. So be it. It doesn't just "quote" a single word. "quotation" implies that it is a copy of some other utterance. Anyway, we agree it is homonymous. Or the definition of zo is disjunctive. > I think that if bacru seems too vague, people will resolve it by making two > lujvo that distinguish between whatever nuances you are implying (which I > won't pretend to understand). I agree. However, it is quite likely that bacru will not seem too vague, yet still be homonymous (or disjunctively defined: it could mean "x1 either utters sound x2 or utters an instance of text-type x2", in which case lo`i se bacru would contain sounds and text-types). --And