John E. Clifford, On 09/10/2011 00:56:
About {zi'o}, there are two possible
ways of reading, say, {zi'o klama}. One as a relation among places,
paths and modes of transportation that hold of a quartet of such just
in case some traveler take the path from the second place to the
first along the path using the transportation mode. The second is
much the same except that the traveller does not enter in, we just
have a relation among the quartets with no further indication of why
they are in that relation. The second view, while formally possible,
is surely not what is intended; why would we use {klama} if the
things related were never part of a trip?
{zi'o klama} surely does mean what your Second View says it means. It make make sense for describing, say, a transport route.
IMO the best rule would be for empty places to be fillable by zi'o or by zo'e, but not for zi'o to be a possible value of zo'e. Disambiguation could be effected by using an overt zi'o or zo'e. Allowing zi'o as a value of zo'e would permit undisambiguable ambiguity -- of course a very bad thing. The advantage of letting empty places be fillable by covert zi'o is that it would overcome the problem of superfluous gismu places that usage tends to forget about.
--And.
--
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.