From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Mar 22 09:03:34 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 68968 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2005 17:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2005 17:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2005 17:03:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DDmmz-0005Tm-HJ for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:03:33 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DDmmX-0005TP-Nj; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:03:06 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:03:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DDmmL-0005T8-RG for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:02:53 -0800 Received: from web81306.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.81]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DDmmB-0005Sp-Bu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:02:53 -0800 Message-ID: <20050322170212.7420.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81306.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:02:11 PST Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:02:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 9636 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: "zo'e" = ("unimportant","obvious" and ?"unknown") X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23996 The whole zo'e series is so set up as to create a jnumber of possible misunderstandings. Even the clearest, {zu'i}, the typical value, is not so clear as to be unproblematic, since it inherits all the obscurities of "typical" (subjective? communal? objective average?). And once that is decided more or less we are still left with the question of whether the filler is a refereence to a particular individual or is a general claim (like "the typical x") about some type of thing -- though this is usually decidable by context. Notice that "the usual" is often an attempt to be informative without saying much (out of indifference or ignorance or even contempt for the listener), that is, it downplays the significance of the holder of the marked place. In {lo cinfo cu citka zu'i} do we mean that this is a particular (bunch of) lion(s) eating the typical stuff -- typical presumably for lions -- or is this a general claim that lions (as a species, in general) eat the usual (for whom?) stuff? The perils of {zi'o} are also obvious: using {zi'o} might appear to mean that nothing fills that place, i.e., to make a universal negative claim. But, it turns out, {zi'o} is only grammatically a sumti but is semantically a different sort of predicate modifier, creating a new predicate -- with one less place -- from the one overtly presented. To be sure, a sumti also creates a new predicate with one less place, but it does so by saying (usually) what goes in that place in the original. {zi'o} doesn't say what goes in that place -- even that something or nothing does (other things regular sumti -- {da} and {noda} -- do); it simply removes that place from consideration. Questions of what -- if anything - goes there are simply not relevant, any more that questions about what is to go into the third place of {bacru}. {zo'e} fits into this pattern of downplaying whatever goes into a certain place. It is more generousd than {zi'o}, for it allows -- even insists that something does go there, while still denying that the question what that something is is a sensible one to ask at this point. Thus, it is less generous than {da} in this place, since {da} allows (even invites) the question "Which one?" and {zo'e} says that that is not a question to be entertained at the moment. To be sure, saying that the question is not to be entertained seems to arise from two quite different considerations, both of which get some support in CLL as the meaning of {zo'e}, and the word lists add a third reading. The idea is that identifying the occupant of the place is a waste of time, either because everybody all ready knows who it is or because who it is does not make any difference in the current situation. The word list reading (with a small clarification)is perhaps the safest : placeholder unspecified and questions about who it is dismissed as a waste of time. (A thorough pragmatic analysis would suggest that in the case where we do not know who it is, {da} is better, even if asking the speaker would be a waste of time, since he doesn't know the answer.)