From phma@webjockey.net Tue Nov 05 18:06:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Nov 2002 02:06:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 50781 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 02:06:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2002 02:06:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 02:06:24 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189FaK-0001Ec-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:06:24 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189FZx-0001EL-00; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:06:01 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=neofelis.ixazon.lan) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189FZs-0001E8-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:05:56 -0800 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 9754C3C478; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:05:21 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: zo'e = ? su'o de (was Re: What the heck is this crap?) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 21:05:19 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <20021105222732.GH22843@digitalkingdom.org> <20021105183900.B73242-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> <20021106012854.GB54404@allusion.net> In-Reply-To: <20021106012854.GB54404@allusion.net> X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <02110521051903.07767@neofelis> X-archive-position: 2439 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Tuesday 05 November 2002 20:28, Jordan DeLong wrote: > zo'e == "implied value". This means it can mean things which don't > claim existence, such as "lo'e pavyseljirna" or "lo'i cridrdrakone" > (ok; well on that last I guess it depends on whether ro is importing, > no? -- imho it would *suck* *ass* if ro were importing though, as > lo'i broda wouldn't be something you could say when the set is > empty, since the inner quantifier is ro. Also I gather that > nonimporting universal quantifier is more standard in logic as > well). This isn't the same as "su'o de" ("de") because it doesn't > involve an existential quantifier. Okay, what about {gambire ji'i civoda}? That has an implied zo'e whose value isn't any sort of quantified thing. {su'oda gambire ji'i civoda} is false, because a thing can be at most one type of gambier. But {gambire ji'i civoda} is, at least the way I used it, equivalent to {ji'i civoda se gambire}, which may be true, though ITIS's list doesn't show nearly that many. phma