From richardt@flash.net Sun Jun 10 16:13:25 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 10 Jun 2001 23:13:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 78413 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 23:13:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2001 23:13:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout2-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 23:13:24 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.104.217]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5ANDLk48274; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 19:13:22 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout2-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B23EE6E.9CFAB647@flash.net> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:02:22 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jay Kominek Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] zi'o and modals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7755 Jay Kominek wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Richard Todd wrote: > > a: mi klama ; I go > > b: go'i bai ma ; Compelled by what? > > a: zi'o ; Nonexistent, doesn't apply > > b: je'e ; roger. > > Shouldn't a respond with noda, not zi'o? Well, since {ma} just means ``fill in a value that makes this sentence true,'' and {mi klama bai zi'o} is a valid sentence, A has the option to respond with {zi'o}. The difference, as I understand it: noda = No force exists which compells me. Though the relationship I'm expressing could have a force component in it, there isn't one in this case. zi'o = a compelling force is not part of the relationship I'm expressing. It doesn't apply here, and couldn't in any case. Someone please let me know if this doesn't compute; I've convinced myself that it makes sense but that doesn't make it true... Richard