From cowan@ccil.org Mon Jun 11 04:37:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 11:37:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 20291 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 11:37:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 11:37:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 11:37:06 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 159Q0H-00023v-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:37:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] zi'o and modals In-Reply-To: <3B241E60.8483A66F@flash.net> from Richard Todd at "Jun 10, 2001 08:26:56 pm" To: Richard Todd Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7797 Richard Todd scripsit: > John Cowan wrote: > > Thus if mi klama zo'e, then mi klama zi'o. The converse need not > > be true, though. > > You've lost me there. Can you elaborate on why this is true? > > I thought: > {zo'e} is an elided value that you can assume is unimportant. Not only > does it exist, but whatever value it has makes the sentence true. Correct. > So, I don't see how {mi klama zo'e} implies {mi klama zi'o}, or the > converse. One has an unspecified, unimportant destination, and the > other is a kind of going that has no destination (zi'o deleted it). The phrase "has no destination" is ambiguous, and only one of its meanings works here. "klama be zi'o" has no destination in the same sense that "mlatu" has no destination: it isn't part of the place structure. That does not mean *necessarily*, though it *may* mean, that the underlying *event* is a going-without-destination. It simply means that *this* bridi does not refer, even implicitly, to the destination. Now if you are referring to a going-without-destination, then "klama be zi'o" holds but not "klama be zo'e". However, every "klama be zo'e" can also be viewed as a "klama be zi'o". For that matter, every "klama be la beidjin." can be viewed as a "klama be zi'o", even though the destination is always Beijing. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter