From richardt@flash.net Mon Jun 11 04:01:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 11:01:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 60376 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 11:01:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 11:01:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout3-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 11:01:13 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.101.177]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5BB1Bg51218 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:01:11 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout3-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B249452.44F2B5D7@flash.net> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 04:50:10 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] zi'o and modals References: <3B241E60.8483A66F@flash.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7794 John Cowan wrote: > Thus if mi klama zo'e, then mi klama zi'o. The converse need not > be true, though. I've slept on it, and still can not see this. Sometimes I think I get it, but I have ideas that trip me up. I think I need a slightly longer sentence to get across my point. mi klama le zarci fu le mi karce It's my (possibly misguided) view that this does not imply the truth of: mi klama le zarci zi'o zi'o le mi karce My thinking is that the first sentence, with implied {zo'e}, is talking about an act of going. "I go to the store from _ by route _ in my car." The _ places exist and are true, I just haven't bothered to say them. The second sentence reads to me like "I go to the store in my car. {where I may start from and what my route may be do not exist in this relationship}" It's a more general statement, and not about a single act of going. This follows from the fact that no starting point, or route exists in this relationship. It's simplified, as you say. To me, this sentence implies that (for example) I never walk to the store; when I go to the store it's by car. Is that wrong? If so, then please tell me the difference in meaning between the two sentences I gave. This is the only way I can think to interpret them without making {zo'e} and {zi'o} equivalent. Assuming that I am not way off, then I claim that neither implies the other. A specific instance of {going to the store from {elided place} by {elided route} by car} does not imply that {I go to the store by car} is true as a simplified relationship between me, the store, and the car. In other words, seeing me go there by car does not allow you to say that car the way I go there in general. The opposite would be true as well; the fact that {I go to the store by car} does not imply that any statement about a particular trip {I go to the store {elided starting point} {elided route} by car} is true. This is difficult to think about in english! (the two sentences want to read the same way to me anyway) Richard