Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Any problem with this? As far as I can see, it explains all common usage
> of {zo'e} - and also of {lo} and {le} with their {zo'e (n|v)oi}
> interpretations.

"zo'e" can have an irrelevant or an obvious value. Close-scope
existential quantification may perhaps substitute zo'e in cases of
irrelevant values, but not in cases of obvious values:

- xu do klama lo zarci
- mi klama

That's "I go [there]", not "I go [somewhere]".

Or:

-mi na klama

"I don't go (there)", not "I don't go (anywhere)".

Or:

- ro ma'a klama

"All of us go (there)", not "each of us go [somewhere]".

"zo'e" is just like "mi", "do", "ti", "ta", "tu"... only much more
open ended as to what referents it can pick up from the context of the
utterance.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.