[lojban] Re: use of ko'a

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Adam:
> de'i li 2003-07-21 ti'u li 17:01:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e
>
> >{zo'e} generalizes over all sumti, including quantified variables and
zi'o;
> >it is not restricted to specific referents.
>
> Haven't we agreed that zo'e can't be zi'o? Allowing it to be zi'o would
> have very significant semantic effects.

(These discussions should really go to jboske, shouldn't they?)

The last time this was discussed (on jboske), the eventual consensus among
the discussants (including me & Lojbab; I can't remember who else) was that
zo'e can be zi'o. But overt zo'e cannot in good Gricean faith be zi'o,
because anybody going to the trouble of saying zo'e could equally well go
to the trouble of saying zi'o instead, if that's what they meant.

The great advantage of this position is that it is more consistent with
usage, and significantly reduces the severity of the gismu blotation
problem.
It also conforms to the Lojban principle of greater precision requiring
greater explicitness.

However, as with everything, the BF will need to rule on it when it comes
to consider zo'e.

--And.