[lojban-beginners] Re: zo zu'i

["Brett Williams" <mungojelly@gmail.com>]

On 4/22/08, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I think the example shows that the context does have to play
>  some restricting role, but the fire comment would also seem to say
>  that more than the immediate context must be considered. So,
>  something in between?

 
The more context you admit, the clearer it becomes that not
only was the "zu'i"ed referent typical of the situation, but as 
you zoom in closer it is in fact the only possible logical referent, 
the very one.  Everything is exactly typical of its own situation, 
and nothing is more than vaguely similar to abstracted ideals
like "the typical [xe klama] considered across all [nu klama]".
 
The place in between where I believe the distinction must
rest is precisely upon the point of conversational utility, that is:
"zu'i" means that the speaker expects that the listener has an
idea of what situation is being described, and that they can
easily guess what the "zu'i"ed place is.  The speaker is
encouraging the listener to fill in the blank with the obvious
thing; they're saying "I'm not going to say what this thing
is, but it's pretty much what you'd expect it to be."
 
So if you said "the people exited the building via the zu'i",
I would think you meant the front door.  If you said "the people
exited the ba'e burning building via the zu'i", I would think:
What's the typical way to exit a burning building?  Maybe
via a fire escape?  It doesn't help much to consider the
abstract [xe klama], which could be a spaceship on a
galactic perspective, nor the very particular situation, which
might as well be "zo'e".  It seems to me that the situation
for which a "zu'i" is typical must be a situation being
understood by the listener in the particular communication
context.
 
.ie pei ga'i nai
 
mu'o mi'e .bret.