Opi,
I'm a newbie also but I'll try to answer your
question, just to test my own understanding ;-)
A Lojban statement is semantically isomorphic to a
mathematical predicate
f( x_1, ..., x_n)
where f is a selbri and the x_i are
sumti
In this formalism using zo'e is basically
equivalent to using a wild-card symbol for one of the x_i
For instance, the textbook example
mi vecnu zo'e zo'e le rupnu
("I sell something to someone for the
dollar")
is semantically isomorphic to
vecnu( mi, *, *, le rupnu)
All zo'e does is to specify that these arguments
are not specified. The zo'e's are place-holders.
The choice to use explicit zo'e's instead of
rewording using other mechanisms is a matter of pragmatics, and
emphasis. To me, the above sentence reads emotionally something
like
I sell SOMETHING to SOMEONE for a
dollar
because the choice to include the zo'e's adds a
certain emphasis to those unfilled arguments, an emphasis that is not present
e.g. in the semantically isomorphic (and generally superior, I suppose)
rephrasing
mi vecnu fo le rupnu
-- Ben G
|