From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Apr 28 07:11:18 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 79129 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2005 14:11:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Apr 2005 14:11:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2005 14:11:15 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DR9jV-0006Wv-GT for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:11:13 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DR9j3-0006W2-RH; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:10:59 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DR9is-0006Vl-Sk for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:10:34 -0700 Received: from web81301.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.76]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DR9in-0006Ux-VO for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:10:34 -0700 Message-ID: <20050428140957.9753.qmail@web81301.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81301.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:09:57 PDT Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:09:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9886 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) 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" for selbri. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24255 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 4/28/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > co'e > > > > > That is appropriately unspecified but not > quite > > the "obvious or indifferent" force of {zo'e}. > > Possibly {go'i}, which repeats the previous > bridi > > (or, since it can be modified in various ays, > > selbri) comes closer. But it is a bit too > > precise (informative). Nothing seem to match > > {zo'e} more exactly -- and we don't have the > > luxury of a blank (which best matches > {co'e}). > > A blank selbri is grammatical for the main > bridi, though > not for subordinate bridi. Is it really? I tried running it through by hand and could not get it to come down to Sentence, though it worked for Utterance. > > {go'i} matches {ri}, and {co'e} matches {zo'e}. > I'm not > sure I understand what you say {co'e} lacks, > but then we > don't seem to agree about {zo'e} in the first > place anyway > so that's not surprizing. > I thought it was blank we disagreed about, but {zo'e} is a more natural place, since CLL -- and usage -- have been so contradictory about it. CLL says in one place "the obvious value" and in the next paragraph "a spoken equivalent of a blank" (or so) and elsewhere "used when it doesn't matter what is cited" (or so). It can't be all of these, obviously, but the first and last can at least be gathered under the rubric "no need to name a term." I suppose that and the second (obviously) -- and everything else -- is included under blank, so that might be the best (though it would immediately screw up your definitions for {lo} and the like, which require referential terms -- not that other uses of {zo'e} are referential either).