On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Luke Bergen <
lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, when I said that "zo'e can be replaced by anything" I meant indicate
> that:
> zo'e means something like [some thing goes here and let context decide what
> it is]. That context could be anything. zo'e can be understood to be {lo
> gerku}, {lo mlatu} or {lo ka prami kei}. That's what I meant by "zo'e can
> be replaced by anything".
can be a dog, and so is the referent of "lo gerku". That doesn't mean
that "zo'e" is somehow replacing "lo gerku".
> Apparently it can't though (ko, noda, ma, etc...)
Because none of those are words with referents. (Well, "ko" is in
part, but not only that.)
> I guess I'm fine with all of those although I'm kind of confused by noda
> though. Would you say that it would be ok to "replace" {zi'o} with {noda}?
> i.e. is {mi citka noda} a valid way to understand somebody who says {mi
> citka zi'o}?
If you say "mi citka zi'o" you are saying that you eat, If you say "mi
citka no da" you are saying you don't eat.
> If so, then my point of contention is with the statement that
> {zo'e} cannot be understood to mean {zi'o}.
There has been quite a lot of discussion about that one. The problem
here is that many gismu place structures are so bloated that in
practice "zo'e" is sometimes used with the sense of "zi'o", although
logically it shouldn't be.
> If I say {mi jinvi fo zo'e} is it not possible that I am claiming to opine
> something with no basis (i.e. blind faith)?
That would be misusing "jinvi", which is for opinions with some basis.
There's "krici" when you don't want any basis involved.