From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Jul 21 15:08:48 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 41931 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2003 22:08:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Jul 2003 22:08:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2003 22:08:44 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19eipo-0008AR-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:08:44 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eiph-0008A6-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:08:37 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.112]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eipW-00089m-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:08:26 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-54-182.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.54.182]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FBE75B693 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:07:53 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <00bd01c34fd4$8b5d1460$55350751@oemcomputer> To: References: <0HID0011SX32CW@mxout4.netvision.net.il> Subject: [lojban] Re: use of ko'a Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:56:31 +0100 Organization: Livagian Consulate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 5943 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20425 Adam: > de'i li 2003-07-21 ti'u li 17:01:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e > > >{zo'e} generalizes over all sumti, including quantified variables and zi'o; > >it is not restricted to specific referents. > > Haven't we agreed that zo'e can't be zi'o? Allowing it to be zi'o would > have very significant semantic effects. (These discussions should really go to jboske, shouldn't they?) The last time this was discussed (on jboske), the eventual consensus among the discussants (including me & Lojbab; I can't remember who else) was that zo'e can be zi'o. But overt zo'e cannot in good Gricean faith be zi'o, because anybody going to the trouble of saying zo'e could equally well go to the trouble of saying zi'o instead, if that's what they meant. The great advantage of this position is that it is more consistent with usage, and significantly reduces the severity of the gismu blotation problem. It also conforms to the Lojban principle of greater precision requiring greater explicitness. However, as with everything, the BF will need to rule on it when it comes to consider zo'e. --And.